Assisted Rental Housing - University of Florida · A second, parallel effect has been the predominance of for-profit ownership of Florida’s assisted housing. In the early years

Anne RayDiep NguyenWilliam O’DellPatricia Roset-ZuppaDouglas WhiteFlorida Housing Data ClearinghouseShimberg Center for Housing Studies M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building ConstructionCollege of Design, Construction and PlanningUniversity of Florida

www.flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu

Major funding for this report provided by the State of Florida.

The State of Florida’s Assisted Rental Housing

Florida Housing Data ClearinghouseShimberg Center for Housing StudiesM.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building ConstructionCollege of Design, Construction & PlanningUniversity of Florida203 Rinker HallP.O. Box 115703Gainesville, Florida 32611-5703


1

The State of Florida’s

Assisted Rental Housing

Anne RayDiep NguyenWilliam O’Dell

Patricia Roset-ZuppaDouglas White

Florida Housing Data ClearinghouseShimberg Center for Housing Studies

M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building ConstructionCollege of Design, Construction and Planning

University of Florida

June 2009

The Shimberg Center for Housing Studies was established at the University of Florida in 1988 to promote safe, decent and affordable housing and related community development throughout the state of Florida. The Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, located within the Shimberg Center, provides public access to data on Florida’s housing needs and supply, subsidized rental housing, and household demographics at http://flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu. The Clearinghouse is jointly funded by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation and the Shimberg Center.

2 | The State of Florida’s Assisted Rental Housing

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................3

I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................................5

II. Overview of Florida’s Assisted Housing ..........................................................................................................................................7

Assisted Housing Location ..................................................................................................................................................................7

Tenant Incomes in Assisted Housing ..............................................................................................................................................12

Target Populations in Assisted Housing ..........................................................................................................................................13

Age of Assisted Housing ...................................................................................................................................................................13

Ownership Type ..................................................................................................................................................................................14

Florida Compared to Other States ...................................................................................................................................................15

III. Evolution of Assisted Housing Production: A Generational Shift from Federal to State/Local Initiatives .......................16

Roots of the Generational Shift .......................................................................................................................................................16

Implications of the Shift from Federal to State/Local Financing ...............................................................................................18

IV. Preservation of At-Risk Assisted Housing .....................................................................................................................................22

V. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................................................25

References ....................................................................................................................................................................................................25

Appendix 1. Rent-Subsidized Units .........................................................................................................................................................26

Appendix 2. Data Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................32

Appendix 3. Descriptions of Assisted Housing Programs ..................................................................................................................42

Programs Administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development .......................................................42

Programs Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development ............................................................43

Programs Administered by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation .....................................................................................43

Program Administered by Local Housing Finance Authorities ...................................................................................................44

Appendix 4. Preservation Risk Assessment Methodology ...................................................................................................................46

Opt-out Risk Analysis Process ..........................................................................................................................................................46

Fail-Out Risk Analysis Process .........................................................................................................................................................46

Application of Risk Analysis Tool ...................................................................................................................................................46

The State of Florida’s

Assisted Rental Housing

3

Executive Summary

I. IntroductionThis report examines the characteristics of Florida’s stock of assisted rental housing: privately owned rental housing that receives public subsidies in exchange for affordability restric-tions. It traces some of the changes in Florida’s assisted hous-ing stock since the 1960s and examines the preservation risks to older assisted housing properties.

The report is based on analysis of data from the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse’s Assisted Housing Inventory (AHI), which tracks properties in Florida with funding from HUD, U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development (RD), Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Florida Hous-ing), and Local Housing Finance Authorities (LHFAs).

II. Overview of Florida’s Assisted HousingFlorida has 2,250 assisted housing properties with 253,826 income- and rent-restricted units. While property characteris-tics vary widely, the bulk of the units are:

1. Located in large metropolitan areas. More than two-thirds (69 percent) of assisted units are lo-

cated in the state’s four major metropolitan areas: Miami/Fort Lauderdale/Pompano Beach, Orlando, Tampa/St. Petersburg/Clearwater, and Jacksonville.

2. Occupied by tenants with incomes below 60 percent of the area median income (AMI).

Seventy-six percent of HUD units are occupied by house-holds with incomes at or below 30 percent of area median income (AMI). Similarly, 86 percent of RD units are oc-cupied by households with incomes below 50 percent of AMI. The vast majority of Florida Housing-funded units (92 percent) are restricted to households with incomes of no more than 60 percent of AMI.

3. Open to the general low-income population, rather than specific groups.

More than 195,000 assisted housing units are “family” units, which may house single persons and unrelated individuals as well as related adults and children. Almost 46,000 are reserved for the elderly. Less than five percent of assisted housing units are reserved for other populations.

4. Relatively new.

More than two-thirds of today’s assisted units were built in 1990 or later. Florida added almost 170,000 assisted hous-ing units in the 1990s and 2000s.

5. Owned by for-profit corporations.

Nearly four out of five assisted units are in properties owned by profit-motivated corporations, either tradi-tional for-profits (72 percent of units) or limited dividend corporations (7 percent). Non-profits own 21 percent of assisted housing units.

III. Evolution of Assisted Housing Production: A Generational Shift from Federal to State/Local InitiativesThe history of Florida’s assisted housing stock reflects a na-tional generational shift in how assisted housing is produced: from federal programs in the 1960s to mid-1980s to state and local initiatives today. While HUD and RD initiated Florida’s assisted housing stock, Florida Housing now funds far more units, either with direct state dollars or via federal resources allocated by the states. Almost 174,000 housing units now in operation have received financing from Florida Housing, compared to approximately 76,000 HUD-funded units and 21,000 RD-funded units.

One effect of the shift to state allocation of resources has been a growing emphasis on family housing. Early HUD programs emphasized elderly housing. More than half (58 percent) of assisted housing units built in the 1960s are reserved for elderly households. However, state and local programs strongly emphasize the less restrictive family units, with 87 percent of Florida Housing-sponsored units in family developments. Thus, only 2 percent of all new assisted units built since 2000 are reserved for the elderly.

A second, parallel effect has been the predominance of for-profit ownership of Florida’s assisted housing. In the early years of assisted housing, HUD directed more subsidies to non-profit than for-profit developers in Florida. In contrast, 89 percent of Florida Housing-assisted units and 92 percent of LHFA-funded units are owned by for-profits. As a result, older housing is much more likely to be owned by non-profits than newer developments.

A third presumed effect is a move away from the production of affordable housing for the lowest income tenants, due to the shift from older HUD and RD deep subsidy programs to more shallow state-allocated subsidies such as mortgage revenue bonds and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). For example, 64 percent of units developed before 1990 receive operating subsidies through federal rental assis-tance contracts, making them affordable to the lowest income tenants. Only 8 percent of units produced since 1990 receive this assistance.


IV. Preservation of At-Risk Assisted HousingEven as assisted housing production continues to grow, the older assisted housing stock faces two countervailing pres-sures that may result in losses of affordable housing. First, owners of many older properties may opt out of income and rent restrictions by prepaying subsidized mortgages or termi-nating rental assistance contracts. In the near term, opt-outs may become less likely than in the past, as the soft hous-ing market makes condominium conversion or marketing to higher-income tenants less attractive to property owners. Second, aging properties risk “fail-out” when their physical and financial condition deteriorates, resulting in default on subsidized mortgages or loss of habitability.

The Shimberg Center has created profiles of the character-istics of properties at each type of risk. Statewide, there are 133 properties with 7,179 assisted units at heightened opt-out risk. There are 42 properties with 3,856 units at heightened fail-out risk; 12 of these properties with 926 units also show heightened opt-opt risk.

V. ConclusionIn the near future, the state will continue its strong involve-ment in the allocation of housing funding, but the sources of that funding are shifting. Florida’s housing trust fund has been reduced significantly due to lower collection of revenues and use of trust fund monies for the state’s general fund. Also, federal housing tax credits are generating less equity than in the past, and few investors are purchasing mortgage revenue bonds. However, state agencies are now responsible for allocating funds from new federal housing programs, including the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, the TCAP and tax credit exchange programs, and potentially, the National Housing Trust Fund.

Another trend will be an increased emphasis on preservation of assisted housing. Florida Housing’s recent preservation efforts include a $4 million annual set-aside of its LIHTC al-location for preservation and a three-county pilot program to provide preservation bridge loans. Most recently, the MacAr-thur Foundation awarded $1 million to Florida Housing, the Shimberg Center, and the Florida Housing Coalition to build the capacity of non-profits to acquire and preserve at-risk assisted housing and to develop enhanced rental market data. Future State of Florida’s Assisted Rental Housing reports will focus on the units and tenants most affected by the preserva-tion of at-risk housing.

5

I. IntroductionFlorida’s assisted housing supply consists of more than 250,000 units of privately owned, publicly subsidized rental housing for low-income individuals and families. The for-profit and non-profit owners of assisted housing accept restrictions on tenant incomes and rents in exchange for government subsidies such as low-cost loans, grants, and rent subsidies.

The privately owned assisted housing stock forms one branch of a three-part system of subsidized rental housing. The second branch is public housing, which refers to rental hous-ing that is both publicly funded and publicly owned. Local

public housing authorities own and manage public housing, with funding from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The third branch is Housing Choice Vouchers, monthly rent subsidies that are provided to individual tenants so that they can afford housing available on the private market. Vouchers are funded by HUD and ad-ministered by public housing authorities. Figure 1.1 shows the relationships among the different types of subsidized rental housing. Appendix 1, “Rent-Subsidized Units,” discusses public housing and vouchers more fully.

This report examines the characteristics of the privately owned assisted housing portion of this system in Florida. The report is based on analysis of data from the Florida Housing

Figure 1.1. Relationship between Rent-Subsidized and Assisted Housing


Data Clearinghouse’s Assisted Housing Inventory (AHI).1 The AHI database tracks rental housing properties in Florida subsidized by one or more of four public sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development (RD), Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Florida Hous-ing), and Local Housing Finance Authorities (LHFAs).2

Since the 1960s, these agencies have initiated numerous pro-grams to encourage production of affordable rental housing by the private sector. Types of subsidies include:

• Capital financing: Agencies have offered below inter-est mortgages, mortgage insurance, interest-free capital advances, tax-exempt bond financing, loan guarantees and pre-development financing to reduce the cost of produc-ing rental housing.

• Rental subsidies: HUD and RD provide monthly rent sub-sidies to property owners to bridge the gap between the amounts low-income tenants can pay for rent and the ac-tual operating costs or other agreed-upon unit rent. Under these programs, tenants pay 30 percent of their income for rent, with the federal agencies paying the difference between this amount and the actual unit rent.

• Tax credits: The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit pro-vides private investors in affordable rental housing with a credit against their federal tax liability. Developers use the credits to raise equity for new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation of rental housing developments.

1 Data from the Assisted Housing Inventory are as of August 2008.2 There are 23 LHFAs in Florida that have issued multifamily mortgage revenue bonds for the construction or rehabilitation of rental

housing. 3 Note that the AHI does not track units funded by HUD’s Section 8 Mod Rehab program or by HOME funds allocated by local govern-

ments. The AHI does track projects funded by HOME dollars allocated by the State of Florida.

The assisted housing programs included in the AHI are de-scribed in detail in Appendix 3.3

Each decade, Florida has added an increasing number of units to its assisted housing inventory, particularly following the founding of Florida Housing in 1981. At the same time, the older assisted housing stock faces significant challenges: pressure for strong properties to “opt-out” of the subsidized housing inventory, thus removing affordability restrictions, as well as the potential for weaker properties to “fail-out” of the system through deterioration and default. Using data from the AHI, this report traces some of the changes in Florida’s assisted housing stock since the 1960s and examines the pres-ervation risks to older assisted housing properties.

Figure 2-1. Assisted Rental Housing Units by County, 2008

Source: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory

7

II. Overview of Florida’s Assisted HousingFlorida has 2,250 assisted housing properties with 274,104 total units, according to the Assisted Housing Inventory. Of these units, 253,826 are considered assisted units in that they carry income and rent restrictions as-sociated with public subsidy.4 The assisted units are the basis for analysis in this report.

The assisted housing supply substantially outnumbers the state’s 39,434 public housing units and 94,347 vouchers; because vouchers may be used in many assisted hous-ing developments, there is overlap between the number of assisted units and vouchers. By way of comparison, an estimated 907,000 renter households in Florida have incomes below 60 percent of the area median income (AMI), a common target market for assisted rental hous-ing.5

While characteristics of Florida’s assisted housing prop-erties vary widely, the bulk of the units are:

• Located in large metropolitan areas;

• Occupied by tenants with incomes below 60 percent of the area median income;

• Open to the general low-income population, rather than specific groups such as the elderly;

• Relatively new; and

• Owned by for-profit corporations.

Assisted Housing LocationFlorida’s assisted housing stock is concentrated in and around the state’s urban centers. More than two-thirds (69 percent) of assisted units are located in the state’s four major metropolitan areas. These areas contain most of the state’s population (62 percent). They also contain most of its low-income, cost-burdened renter households (70 percent); that is, households with in-comes at or below 60 percent of AMI and paying more than 40 percent of their income for rent.

9

Table 2-1. Assisted Housing Units in Florida’s Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 2008

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Assisted

Housing Units

Share of State's

Assisted

Housing Units

Share of State's

2008 Population

Share of State’s

Low-Income,

Cost-Burdened

Renters

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-

Pompano Beach 65,263 26% 29% 37%

Orlando 49,198 19% 11% 12%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-

Clearwater 35,048 14% 15% 15%

Jacksonville 26,584 10% 7% 6%

Total 176,093 69% 62% 70%

Sources: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory; Shimberg Center for Housing Studies,

2007 Rental Market Study, September 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey

Assisted housing properties appear in every Florida county except Liberty County. The Rural Development program in particular ensures that assisted housing properties are located in small- and medium-sized counties throughout the state. Figure 2-1 and Table 2-2 show the distribution of assisted rental housing units by county. Figure 2-1. Assisted Rental Housing Units by County, 2008

Table 2-1. Assisted Housing Units in Florida’s Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 2008

Sources: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory; Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, 2007 Rental Market Study, September 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey

Assisted housing properties appear in every Florida county except Liberty County. The Rural Development program in particular ensures that assisted housing properties are located in small- and medium-sized counties throughout the state. Figure 2-1 and Table 2-2 show the distribution of assisted rental housing units by county.

Some areas of the state have a particularly large number of assisted units. These geographic concentrations vary by funder. The concentration is most striking in the Orlando

4 With the exception of the tax-exempt bonds issued by LHFAs, the Assisted Housing Inventory does not contain information about local programs that fund affordable rental housing.

5 Based on Shimberg Center analysis of data from the 2007 American Community Survey.


11

Table 2-2. Assisted Rental Housing by MSA and County, 2008

Assisted

Properties

Assisted

Units

Share

of

State's

Assisted

Units

Jacksonville, FL MSA Baker County 2 102 0.04%

Clay County 15

1,514 0.60%

Duval County 148

22,765 8.97%

Nassau County 17 786 0.31%

St. Johns County 18

1,519 0.60%

MSA Total 200

26,686 10.52%

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach,

FL MSA Broward County 108

15,292 6.02%

Miami-Dade County 301

37,036 14.59%

Palm Beach County 98

12,935 5.10%

MSA Total 507

65,263 25.71%

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL MSA Lake County 65

5,148 2.03%

Orange County 171

31,923 12.58%

Osceola County 36

5,962 2.35%

Seminole County 34

6,165 2.43%

MSA Total 306

49,198 19.39%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

MSA Hernando County 16

1,231 0.48%

Hillsborough County 150

21,416 8.44%

Pasco County 45

2,787 1.10%

Pinellas County 94

9,614 3.79%

MSA Total 305

35,048 13.81%

Major Metropolitan Area Total 1,318

176,195 69.43%

Table 2-2. Assisted Rental Housing by MSA and County, 2008


9

12

Assisted

Properties

Assisted

Units

Share

of

State's

Assisted

Units

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MSA Lee County 53

5,886 2.32%

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach,

FL MSA Volusia County 61

6,447 2.54%

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL

MSA Okaloosa County 17

1,199 0.47%

Gainesville, FL MSA Alachua County 43

3,597 1.42%

Gilchrist County 2 60 0.02%

MSA Total 45

3,657 1.44%

Lakeland, FL MSA Polk County 72

5,720 2.25%

Naples-Marco Island, FL MSA Collier County 44

6,235 2.46%

Ocala, FL MSA Marion County 33

2,849 1.12%

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA Brevard County 59

5,623 2.22%

Palm Coast, FL MSA Flagler County 5 268 0.11%

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL MSA Bay County 28

2,450 0.97%

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL MSA Escambia County 48

3,759 1.48%

Santa Rosa County 15 725 0.29%

MSA Total 63

4,484 1.77%

Port St. Lucie-Ft. Pierce, FL MSA Martin County 17

1,221 0.48%

St. Lucie County 19

2,619 1.03%

MSA Total 36

3,840 1.51%

Punta Gorda, FL MSA Charlotte County 16

2,074 0.82%

Table 2-2. Assisted Rental Housing by MSA and County, 2008 (continued)


13

Assisted

Properties

Assisted

Units

Share

of

State's

Assisted

Units

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL MSA Manatee County 36

4,421 1.74%

Sarasota County 23

2,437 0.96%

MSA Total 59

6,858 2.70%

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL MSA Indian River County 29

3,144 1.24%

Tallahassee, FL MSA Gadsden County 18

1,068 0.42%

Jefferson County 4 171 0.07%

Leon County 40

4,269 1.68%

Wakulla County 2 64 0.03%

MSA Total 64

5,572 2.20%

Remaining Metropolitan Area Total 684

66,306 26.14%

Northeast Non-Metropolitan Area Bradford County 10 486 0.19%

Columbia County 10 657 0.26%

Dixie County 1 32 0.01%

Hamilton County 5 147 0.06%

Lafayette County 1 36 0.01%

Levy County 14 445 0.18%

Madison County 7 337 0.13%

Suwannee County 8 457 0.18%

Taylor County 5 237 0.09%

Union County 2 80 0.03%

Northeast Non-Metropolitan Total 63

2,914 1.14%

Northwest Non-Metropolitan Area Calhoun County 2 88 0.03%

Franklin County 4 121 0.05%

Gulf County 3 113 0.04%

Holmes County 4 81 0.03%

Jackson County 18 821 0.32%

Liberty County 0 0 0.00%

Walton County 6 205 0.08%

Washington County 5 110 0.04%

Northwest Non-Metropolitan

Total 42

1,539 0.59%


11

14

Assisted

Properties

Assisted

Units

Share

of

State's

Assisted

Units

Central Non-Metropolitan Area Citrus County 24 920 0.36%

Putnam County 26

1,164 0.46%

Sumter County 13 485 0.19%

Central Non-Metropolitan

Total 63

2,569 1.01%

South Non-Metropolitan Area DeSoto County 12 632 0.25%

Glades County 1 28 0.01%

Hardee County 10 665 0.26%

Hendry County 10 572 0.23%

Highlands County 25

1,200 0.47%

Monroe County 16 879 0.35%

Okeechobee County 6 327 0.13%

South Non-Metropolitan Total 80

4,303 1.70%

Non-Metropolitan Area Total 248

11,325 4.44%

State Total 2,250

253,826 100%


Some areas of the state have a particularly large number of assisted units. These geographic concentrations vary by funder. The concentration is most striking in the Orlando area, which is home to a large share of Florida’s state- and locally-financed assisted housing. The Orlando metropolitan area is home to nearly one-fourth of units financed by Florida Housing and LHFAs (23 percent for each) but just 11 percent of the state’s population and 12 percent of Florida’s low-income, cost-burdened renters. The Miami and Jacksonville metropolitan areas have relatively high concentrations of HUD-assisted housing. More than one-fourth (29 percent) of HUD units are located in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach metropolitan area. This is comparable to the area’s share of the state’s population but lower than the area’s 37 percent share of Florida’s low-income, cost-burdened renters. In contrast, Jacksonville’s share of HUD units is relatively high compared to its share of renters in need. Thirteen percent of the state’s HUD units are in the Jacksonville area, compared to seven percent of the state’s population and six percent of the state’s low-income, cost-burdened renters.

Anne Ray

Comment: Please help me think this through. The implication of the Orlando finding could be that the

area is over-served by FHFC/LHFA housing, as is implied here by noting this fact without comment. However, the finding also could imply that

concentrating the housing in this area works; it reduces the number of low-income, cost-burdened households. As for the Miami and Jacksonville

findings, is it worth noting here that HUD units tend to be aimed at lower incomes and that it constitutes a much smaller portion of the inventory than the

FHFC/LHFA units? I make these points later and introducing them here might make this more complicated, but it’s also necessary context.

Any alternative ideas about how to present this whole question of geographic concentration, if I

should do it at all?


area, which is home to a large share of Florida’s state- and locally-financed assisted housing. The Orlando metropoli-tan area is home to nearly one-fourth of units financed by Florida Housing and LHFAs (23 percent for each) but just 11 percent of the state’s population and 12 percent of Florida’s low-income, cost-burdened renters.

The Miami and Jacksonville metropolitan areas have relatively high concentrations of HUD-assisted housing. More than one-fourth (29 percent) of HUD units are located in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach metropolitan area. This is comparable to the area’s share of the state’s popula-tion but lower than the area’s 37 percent share of Florida’s low-income, cost-burdened renters. In contrast, Jacksonville’s share of HUD units is relatively high compared to its share

of renters in need. Thirteen percent of the state’s HUD units are in the Jacksonville area, compared to seven percent of the state’s population and six percent of the state’s low-income, cost-burdened renters.

RD units are by definition located in less populous rural areas, although some of the counties with RD units also include large urban areas. RD units are located in 60 of Florida’s 67 counties. Thirteen counties have more than 500 RD units: Lake, Polk, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Collier, Pasco, Citrus, Highlands, Nassau, Orange, Volusia, Gadsden and Putnam.

Appendix 2 includes tables showing the number of assisted units by funder for each metropolitan area and county.

16

Figure 2-2. Estimated Number of HUD Units by Tenant Income Level, 20087

<=30% AMI

59,221 Units

76%

51-80% AMI

1,558 Units

2%31-50% AMI

17,143 Units

22%

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Picture of Subsidized Households—2000, 2006;

Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory

RD: Actual Tenant Incomes

Most RD units also serve tenants with the lowest incomes. For the Section 515 program, which subsidizes 79 percent of Florida’s RD units, the average annual household income in April 2008 was less than $13,000. In units where tenants receive rental assistance, 58 percent of all Section 515 units, average annual household income was just over $10,000 (Dept. of Agriculture 2008). Eighty-six percent of RD units are occupied by tenants with household income below 50 percent of AMI. RD does not break out households below 30 percent AMI from this total. Twelve percent of households have incomes from 51 to 80 percent of AMI, and only 2 percent exceed 80 percent of AMI. Figure 2-3 shows the breakdown of households in Florida’s RD-assisted housing by tenant income level.

7 Year 2000 data from HUD’s Picture of Subsidized Households report, published in 2006, are the most recent

tenant rent and income data available. We matched the 2000 data for households by income level as a percentage of

AMI to the properties that are currently in the AHI to create the 2008 estimated distribution.

Figure 2-2. Estimated Number of HUD Units by Tenant Income Level, 20087

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Picture of Subsidized Households—2000, 2006; Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory

17

Figure 2-3. Estimated Number of RD Units by Tenant Income Level, 2008

<=50% AMI

17,647 Units

86%

>80% AMI

349 Units

2%

51-80% AMI

2,515 Units

12%

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2008 Rural Development Multi-Family Housing Annual Occupancy

Report, May 2008. Includes units in properties subsidized by RD’s Section 515 and Section 514/516 programs.

Florida Housing: Target Incomes

While the AHI does not contain actual tenant income information for Florida Housing properties unless they also have HUD funding, we can determine the maximum tenant incomes for assisted units based on the income restrictions imposed by Florida Housing’s programs. The vast majority of Florida Housing units—92 percent—are available to households with incomes of no more than 60 percent of AMI. Most of these are directed at the higher end of this scale. Eighty percent of Florida Housing units target households with incomes of 55-60 percent of AMI, while 3 percent are reserved for households earning 35 percent of AMI or less. These target incomes are maximums. Tenants may have lower incomes than these levels and still be eligible for a unit. For example, program restrictions would not prohibit a household with an income of 30 percent of AMI from living in a unit with a 40 percent AMI income limit. However, because rent restrictions are tied to the level of income restriction, tenants with lower incomes may end up paying more in rent than is affordable to them unless they have additional assistance such as a rent voucher. Figure 2.4 shows the breakdown of Florida Housing-assisted units by tenant income restrictions. Each income restriction category may contain units with different income restrictions within the range. For example, the 40-50 percent AMI category includes units with restrictions of 40 percent, 45 percent, and 50 percent of AMI.

Figure 2-3. Estimated Number of RD Units by Tenant Income Level, 2008

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2008 Rural Development Multi-Family Housing Annual Occupancy Report, May 2008. Includes units in properties subsidized by RD’s Section 515 and Section 514/516 programs.


Tenant Incomes in Assisted HousingThe purpose of assisted housing is to provide affordable housing for lower income tenants. In Florida, the vast bulk of assisted housing units serve tenants with incomes at or below 60 per-cent of the area median income (AMI).

There are two ways to measure tenant incomes in assisted housing: target incomes, which are the maximum tenant incomes allowed by the subsidy programs associated with the units, and actual tenant incomes, which may be lower than what the restrictions allow. The AHI contains esti-mates of actual tenant incomes for units funded by HUD and RD, target income data for Florida Housing-assisted units that do not also have HUD or RD funding, and no direct information on incomes for units that are exclusively LHFA-funded. Therefore, while we cannot make direct comparisons for all assisted housing units, we can describe income characteristics for the federal and state-funded units in different ways.

HUD: Actual Tenant Incomes and RentsMost HUD units house “extremely low-income” households, those with incomes at or below 30 percent of AMI. Using data from HUD’s Picture of Subsidized Households—2000, we estimate that 76 percent of households in HUD units are extremely low-income, and that the average tenant household in a HUD unit has an income of just 23 percent of AMI.

HUD properties target tenants at the lowest end of the income spectrum, often through monthly rent subsidies. The estimated average rent paid by tenants in HUD properties is $214.6 This does not include any amount paid to the property owner through rent subsidies from HUD. Only an estimated 13 percent of units are located in properties where the average tenant-paid rent exceeds $250.

Figure 2-2 shows the estimated breakdown of households in HUD units by tenant income.

6 Rent data are from 2000, the most recent year for which data are available, updated to 2008 dollars.7 Year 2000 data from HUD’s Picture of Subsidized Households report, published in 2006, are the most recent tenant rent and income data

available. We matched the 2000 data for households by income level as a percentage of AMI to the properties that are currently in the AHI to create the 2008 estimated distribution.

RD: Actual Tenant Incomes Most RD units also serve tenants with the lowest incomes. For the Section 515 program, which subsidizes 79 percent of Florida’s RD units, the average annual household income in April 2008 was less than $13,000. In units where tenants receive rental assistance, 58 percent of all Section 515 units, average annual household income was just over $10,000 (Dept. of Agriculture 2008).

13

Eighty-six percent of RD units are occupied by tenants with household income below 50 percent of AMI. RD does not break out households below 30 percent AMI from this total. Twelve percent of households have incomes from 51 to 80 percent of AMI, and only 2 percent exceed 80 percent of AMI.

Figure 2-3 shows the breakdown of households in Florida’s RD-assisted housing by tenant income level.

Florida Housing: Target IncomesWhile the AHI does not contain actual tenant income in-formation for Florida Housing properties unless they also have HUD funding, we can determine the maximum tenant incomes for assisted units based on the income restrictions imposed by Florida Housing’s programs.

The vast majority of Florida Housing units—92 percent—are available to households with incomes of no more than 60 percent of AMI. Most of these are directed at the higher end of this scale. Eighty percent of Florida Housing units target households with incomes of 55-60 percent of AMI, while 3 percent are reserved for households earning 35 percent of AMI or less.

These target incomes are maximums. Tenants may have lower incomes than these levels and still be eligible for a unit. For example, program restrictions would not prohibit a house-hold with an income of 30 percent of AMI from living in a unit with a 40 percent AMI income limit. However, because rent restrictions are tied to the level of income restriction, tenants with lower incomes may end up paying more in rent than is affordable to them unless they have additional assis-tance such as a rent voucher.

Figure 2.4 shows the breakdown of Florida Housing-assisted units by tenant income restrictions. Each income restriction category may contain units with different income restrictions within the range. For example, the 40-50 percent AMI catego-ry includes units with restrictions of 40 percent, 45 percent, and 50 percent of AMI.

Target Populations in Assisted HousingMost assisted housing in Florida is family housing. In this case, “family” is a catch-all term that can include single per-sons and unrelated individuals as well as related adults and children. Therefore, family housing is the least restrictive type of assisted housing; while it is open to populations such as elderly people or people with disabilities, it is not restricted to them. More than 195,000 assisted housing units—over

three-fourths of the state’s total—are family units.

The second most common target population is elderly households. For most programs, an elderly household is defined as one in which the head of household is age 62 or older. For Florida Housing’s State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program, the householder must be 55 or older. Nearly 46,000 (18 percent) assisted units are reserved for elderly households.

Less than five percent of assisted hous-ing units are reserved for other popula-tions, such as persons with disabilities, farmworkers, homeless persons, or com-mercial fishing workers, although these still total more than 6,000 units. Figure 2.5 shows the breakdown of assisted units by target population.

Age of Assisted Housing8

Contrary to the stereotype of aging low-income housing, more than two-

18

Figure 2-4. Florida Housing Units by Target Income Category, 2008

7,438 4,892

129,064

15,448

5,472

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

<=35% AMI 40-50% AMI 55-60% AMI 65-80% AMI >80% AMI

Income Restrictions

Assis

ted

Un

its


Target Populations in Assisted Housing

Most assisted housing in Florida is “family” housing. In this case, “family” is a catch-all term that can include single persons and unrelated individuals as well as related adults and children. Therefore, family housing is the least restrictive type of assisted housing; while it is open to populations such as elderly people or people with disabilities, it is not restricted to them. More than 195,000 assisted housing units—over three-fourths of the state’s total—are family units. The second most common target population is elderly households. For most programs, an elderly household is defined as one in which the head of household is age 62 or older. For Florida Housing’s State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program, the householder must be 55 or older. Nearly 46,000 (18 percent) assisted units are reserved for elderly households.

Figure 2-4. Florida Housing Units by Target Income Category, 2008


8 The analysis in this section is based on the following data variables: for HUD and LHFA developments, the year is the approximate year that the development was originally constructed; for FHFC developments, it is the funding year of the earliest Florida Housing pro-gram that currently assists a property, which may be the year of new construction or year of rehabilitation; and for RD developments, it is the year in which the RD loan closed. Note that some properties listed with early year built/funded dates also have later financing from other sources, which may indicate that the property was rehabilitated or was acquired by a new owner in later years.


thirds of today’s assisted units were built in 1990 or later. The spike in assisted housing production occurred alongside two phenomena: 1) the founding of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation in 1981, and 2) dramatic growth in the state’s population, increasing from about 10 million people in 1980 to nearly 19 million in 2008.9

With a state-level mechanism for assisted housing production in place and the need to house a growing population, Florida added almost 170,000 assisted housing units in the 1990s and 2000s, as shown in Figure 2-6.

Ownership TypeNearly four out of five assisted units are in properties owned by profit-motivated corporations, either traditional for-profits (72 percent of units) or limited dividend corporations (7 percent).

Non-profit corporations own 21 percent of assisted housing units. Non-profits focus on elderly housing development to a much greater extent than do for-profits; 60 percent of units developed by non-profits are reserved for the elderly.

Figure 2.7 shows the predominance of for-profits compared to other types of ownership entities. It also shows the non-profit focus on elderly housing, in contrast to the for-profit and limited dividend corporations’ heavy concentration of family units.

Appendix 2 includes a table of assisted units by ownership type, Metropolitan Statistical Area and county.

19

Less than five percent of assisted housing units are reserved for other populations, such as persons with disabilities, farmworkers, homeless persons, or commercial fishing workers, although these still total more than 6,000 units. Figure 2-5. Assisted Units by Target Population, 2008

195,447

45,891

12,488

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Family Elderly Other

(Persons with

Disabilities,

Farmworker,

Homeless, Fishing

Worker; also

includes more than

5,000 units in

"Elderly/Family"

developments)

Assis

ted U

nits


Other: Persons with Disabilities, Farmworker, Homeless, Fishing Worker; also includes more than 5,000 units in “Elderly/Family” developments.


Figure 2-5. Assisted Units by Target Population, 2008

21

Figure 2-6. Assisted Units by Approximate Year Built or Funded, 200810

6,985

27,739

37,785

82,78686,802

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1962-

1969

1970-

1979

1980-

1989

1990-

1999

2000-

2008

Approximate Year Built or Funded

Assis

ted U

nits


Ownership Type

Nearly four out of five assisted units are in properties owned by profit-motivated corporations, either traditional for-profits (72 percent of units) or limited dividend corporations (7 percent). Non-profit corporations own 21 percent of assisted housing units. Non-profits focus on elderly housing development to a much greater extent than for-profits; 60 percent of units developed by non-profits are reserved for the elderly.

10 See note 5 for meaning of “Approximate Year Built or Funded.” This chart does not include 11,729 units for

which year built/funded data are not available, largely from properties built with multifamily bond financing from an

LHFA.

Figure 2-6. Assisted Units by Approximate Year Built or Funded, 200810


9 Based on data from the 2000 Decennial Census and the 2008 American Community Survey.

10 See note 8 for meaning of “Approximate Year Built or Funded.” This chart does not include 11,729 units for which year built/funded data are not available, largely from properties built with multifamily bond financing from an LHFA.

15

22

Figure 2.7 shows the predominance of for-profits compared to other types of ownership entities. It also shows the non-profit focus on elderly housing, in contrast to the for-profit and limited dividend corporations’ heavy concentration of family units. Figure 2.7 Assisted Housing Units by Ownership Type and Target Population, 2008

10,7023,399

30,476

140,804

14,137

15,785

7,185

4,751

392

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

140,000

150,000

160,000

170,000

For-Profit Limited Dividend Non-Profit

As

sis

ted

Un

its

Other

Family

Elderly


Figure 2.7 Assisted Housing Units by Ownership Type and Target Population, 2008


Florida Compared to Other StatesFederal funding is a major source of support for subsi-dized housing, whether via mortgages and rent subsi-dies allocated directly by HUD and RD or by federal tax credits and mortgage revenue bonds allocated by Florida Housing.

Florida ranks fourth nationally in population. The state has the third largest number of housing units funded by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, which typical-ly provides affordable rental units for households with incomes up to 50-60 percent of AMI. Florida also has the third highest concentration of HUD Section 202 and Section 811 units, which serve households headed by elderly persons or persons with disabilities. The state has the fourth highest number of units receiving fund-ing from RD, which finances affordable rental housing in rural areas.

However, other than Section 202/811 units, Florida’s concentration of HUD-funded units is small relative to its population size. The state ranks seventh in the num-ber of units financed by HUD mortgages and tenth in the number of units with HUD project-based rental assistance. One reason for this is that Florida Housing was one of the last housing finance agencies created around the country. This gave Florida only one year to participate in a HUD program that provided the states with Section 8 contracts to use in properties financed by mortgage revenue bonds before the program ended.

Table A2.3 in Appendix 2 compares the number of HUD, RD, and Low Income Housing Tax Credit units in each state.

While available data do not allow us to make a direct comparison of Florida’s state-funded housing initiatives to other states’ initiatives, historically Florida’s housing trust fund has been the largest in the country. Florida Housing administers several affordable rental housing programs that have been funded by the trust fund, most notably the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program (Muller 2008).


III. Evolution of Assisted Housing Production: A Generational Shift from Federal to State/Local InitiativesThe history of Florida’s assisted housing stock reflects a national generational shift in how assisted housing is pro-duced: from federal programs in the 1960s through mid-1980s to state and local initiatives in the 1990s and beyond. While HUD and RD initiated Florida’s assisted housing stock, Florida Housing Finance Corporation now funds far more units than its federal counterparts.

Today, most assisted housing units in Florida have received financing from Florida Housing, either using direct state dollars or via federal resources that are now allocated by the states. Figure 3.1 shows the number of assisted units in the inventory receiving financing from each source. The numbers add up to more than the total assisted units in the state be-cause properties often receive subsidies from more than one funding source.

Roots of the Generational ShiftOne cause of the shift from federal- to state-sponsored initia-tives was HUD and RD’s pullback from housing production.

25

Figure 3.1 Assisted Units by Funder, 2008 (Duplicated Count)

76,362

20,511

173,799

49,786

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

HUD RD Florida

Housing

LHFA

Assis

ted

Un

its


Roots of the Generational Shift

One cause of the shift from federal- to state-sponsored initiatives was HUD and RD’s pullback from housing production. In the 1960s and 1970s, assisted housing production was primarily driven by the federal government. HUD’s Section 202, Section 221(d)(3) and Section 236 programs provided favorable financing for assisted housing development. Later, the Section 8 program provided ongoing rent subsidies to bridge the gap between what tenants could afford to pay for rent and real operating costs or unit rent. Similarly, RD provided low-interest loans through its Section 515 and Section 514/516 programs and rent subsidies through its Section 521 program. In the 1980s, however, the federal government began to move away from widespread involvement in assisted housing production. HUD began offering housing vouchers in 1974;

Figure 3.1 Assisted Units by Funder, 2008 (Duplicated Count)


In the 1960s and 1970s, assisted housing production was primarily driven by the federal government. HUD’s Section 202, Section 221(d)(3) and Section 236 programs provided favorable financing for assisted housing development. Later, the Section 8 program provided ongoing rent subsidies to bridge the gap between what tenants could afford to pay for rent and real operating costs or unit rent. Similarly, RD pro-vided low-interest loans through its Section 515 and Section 514/516 programs and rent subsidies through its Section 521 program.

In the 1980s, however, the federal government began to move away from widespread involvement in assisted housing production. HUD began offering housing vouchers in 1974; these provide rent subsidies to individual tenants for use on the market rather than subsidizing the production of specific properties. Ten years later, HUD stopped funding new pro-duction of units under the project-based Section 8 program but continued to provide vouchers (Khadduri and Wilkins 163, 2008). HUD’s direct subsidies to new production are now confined to its Section 202 elderly housing program and Section 811 program for people with disabilities. These pro-duce far fewer units than the peak of HUD-funded housing in the 1960s-1980s.11

RD funding of housing production peaked later, during the 1980s. Unlike HUD, RD continues to provide direct subsi-dies for family housing, but at a far slower rate than during its peak.

Figure 3.2 shows the rise and fall of federally subsidized housing production in the past four decades. Note that this figure excludes state-financed properties that received credit enhancement under HUD’s Section 542 program (see note 11) but no direct capital or operating subsidies such as HUD mortgages or rental subsidies. This figure also excludes assisted units that have been lost to the subsidized housing stock for reasons such as conversion to market-rate housing or physical deterioration.

11 In addition, HUD’s Section 542 program provides credit enhancement through mortgage insurance for new state- and local-sponsored housing devel-opments. In Florida, HUD provides this assistance through a risk-sharing agreement with Florida Hous-ing, which also guarantees the loans to new projects. The credit enhancement provided by the two agencies lowers the risk on loans to new affordable housing projects, leading to lower interest rates. Since 1990, 17,877 units have received subsidies from the Section 542 program—nearly two-thirds of units receiving any kind of HUD funding during that time.

17

As HUD and RD were pulling back from widespread subsidies for afford-able housing production, state housing finance agencies (HFAs) took center stage in the sponsorship of new rental housing. These agencies are responsible for allocating federal resources and often their own states’ funding for affordable rental housing.

Florida Housing was founded in 1981 and began issuing tax-exempt bond financing for assisted housing develop-ments that year. Two events greatly increased the state’s involvement in af-fordable housing:

• Creation of the Low-Income Hous-ing Tax Credit (LIHTC) under the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This program provides federal income tax credits in exchange for investment in afford-able rental housing. State HFAs are responsible for allocating the credit to housing developments, giving Florida Housing control over what has be-come the primary federal funding tool for new affordable rental housing.

• The Florida legislature’s passage of the William E. Sadowski Act in 1992, dedicating a portion of the state’s taxes on real estate transactions to affordable housing and creating Florida’s state housing trust fund. As noted earlier, this was the largest state housing trust fund in the country, although in 2009 trust fund revenues have been transferred to the state’s general fund.

Similarly, involvement of local housing finance authori-ties increased dramatically after 1990. These agencies offer tax-exempt bonds for new affordable housing projects, thus providing below-market financing.

Despite this shift, the federal government continues to pro-vide the majority of resources for affordable rental housing. While states now retain far more control and responsibility in the allocation of assisted housing funding, they do so with a combination of state dollars and federal resources such as the LIHTC and mortgage revenue bonds. Moreover, there is an implicit state-federal partnership in tenants’ use of HUD vouchers in assisted housing units receiving Florida Hous-

ing financing. A 2006 study found that nearly 11,000 tenants in Florida use Housing Choice Vouchers in LIHTC units. This represents almost 16 percent of the vouchers and nine percent of the LIHTC units in the state. Over 63 percent of LIHTC projects have at least some voucher holders (Smith et al. 2006). Use of vouchers helps make units funded by the LIHTC, a shallow subsidy program compared to earlier HUD-assisted programs, affordable to tenants with the low-est incomes.

Figure 3.3 shows the sharp growth in state and local financ-ing for assisted rental housing since 1990. This includes all of Florida Housing’s assisted rental housing programs, including those funded by federal resources.

Note that some Florida Housing-funded properties are shown in Figure 3.3 as having been funded or built before 1981, the year in which Florida Housing Finance Corporation was founded. These properties all have HUD or RD funding and were likely constructed with federal assistance and later received additional financing from Florida Housing. Similarly,

27

Figure 3.2 HUD- and RD-Financed Assisted Housing Units by Decade Built or Funded,

2008 (Duplicated Count)12

6,163

23,132

18,723

7,937

2,532

714

4,313

9,369

5,086

1,029

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1962-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2008

Approximate Year Funded or Built

Assis

ted

Un

its

HUD

RD


As HUD and RD were pulling back from widespread subsidies for affordable housing production, state housing finance agencies (HFAs) took center stage in the sponsorship of new rental housing. These agencies are responsible for allocating federal resources and often their own states’ funding for affordable rental housing.

12 See note 5 for the meaning of “Approximate Year Built or Funded.” “Duplicated Count” indicates that some units

are in properties receiving both HUD and RD funding. A small number of units statewide, less than 1,000, are in

properties with capital funding from the RD Section 515 program but rental assistance contracts from HUD. Note

that some units are in properties that also received funding from Florida Housing or LHFAs.

Figure 3.2 HUD- and RD-Financed Assisted Housing Units by Decade Built or Funded, 2008 (Duplicated Count)12


12 See note 8 for the meaning of “Approximate Year Built or Funded.” “Duplicated Count” indicates that some units are in properties re-ceiving both HUD and RD funding. A small number of units statewide, less than 1,000, are in properties with capital funding from the RD Section 515 program but rental assistance contracts from HUD. Note that some units are in properties that also received funding from Florida Housing or LHFAs.


while LHFAs largely became involved in multifamily bond financing after 1982, some properties with earlier federal assistance are shown as hav-ing been built or funded in the 1960s and 1970s. Also, note that this chart does not include units for which data regarding the year built or funded are not available, including nearly 10,000 LHFA-funded units. It also excludes units with expired or terminated use restrictions, which are considered lost to the assisted housing stock.

Implications of the Shift from Federal to State/Local Resource AllocationOne effect of the federal-to-state/local generational shift has been the long-term, growing emphasis on fam-ily housing; that is, units that serve the general tenant population rather than a specific demographic group. As Figure 2-2 in the previous section showed, a large majority of Florida’s assisted housing units are designated as family units, meaning that anyone – families with children, elders, persons with disabilities, single persons and others – may live in these units.

Early in its history, the subsidized housing stock was primarily directed toward elderly households, but this fo-cus soon changed. More than half (58 percent) of assisted housing units built in the 1960s are reserved for elderly households. Elderly housing does not constitute more than 15 percent of units built in any other decade, and only 2 percent of new assisted units built since 2000 are reserved for the elderly. Figure 3.4 shows the shift in emphasis from elderly to family hous-ing over time.

30

Early in its history, the subsidized housing stock was primarily directed toward elderly households, but this focus soon changed. More than half (58 percent) of assisted housing units built in the 1960s are reserved for elderly households. Elderly housing does not constitute more than 15 percent of units built in any other decade, and only 2 percent of new assisted units built since 2000 are reserved for the elderly. Figure 3.4 below shows the shift in emphasis from elderly to family housing over time. Figure 3.4. Elderly and Family Assisted Housing Units by Decade Built or Funded, 2008

11,195 13,02410,365

7,0334,058

66,287

74,885

22,116

14,720

2,213

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1962-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2008


Assis

ted U

nits

Family

Elderly



Figure 3.4. Elderly and Family Assisted Housing Units by Decade Built or Funded, 2008

29

Figure 3.3. Florida Housing- and LHFA-Financed Assisted Housing Units by Decade Built

or Funded, 2008 (Duplicated Count)13

903

4,477

7,472

74,249

82,860

1081,445

5,519

11,177

22,046

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1962-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2008

Approximate Year Funded or Built

Assis

ted U

nits

Florida Housing

LHFAs


Implications of the Shift from Federal to State/Local Resource Allocation

One effect of the federal-to-state/local generational shift has been the long-term, growing emphasis on family housing; that is, units that serve the general tenant population rather than a specific demographic group. As Figure 2-2 in the previous section showed, a large majority of Florida’s assisted housing units are designated as family units, meaning that anyone – families with children, elders, persons with disabilities, single persons and others – may live in these units.

13 See note 5 regarding the meaning of “Approximate Year Funded or Built.” “Duplicated Count” indicates that

some units are in properties with funding from both Florida Housing and an LHFA. Note that some units are in

properties that also have HUD or RD funding.

Figure 3.3. Florida Housing- and LHFA-Financed Assisted Housing Units by Decade Built or Funded, 2008 (Duplicated Count)13


13 See note 8 regarding the meaning of “Approximate Year Funded or Built.” “Duplicated Count” indicates that some units are in properties with fund-ing from both Florida Housing and an LHFA. Note that some units are in properties that also have HUD or RD funding.

Figure 3.5. HUD-Funded Assisted Units by Presence of Section 202/811 Funding and Decade Built or Funded, 2008

Source: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory. Excludes units whose only HUD funding comes from the Section 542 credit enhancement program; includes units with rent subsidies or HUD mortgages.

33

36,472

15,528

155,265

40,539

36,281

15,706

2,232

4,503

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

HUD RD Florida

Housing

LHFA

Assis

ted

Un

its

Non-Profit

For-Profit orLimited Dividend

Source: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory. The bar representing HUD excludes

units whose only HUD funding comes from the Section 542 credit enhancement program. It includes units with rent

subsidies or HUD mortgages.

As a result, older housing is much more likely to be owned by non-profits than newer developments. The proportion of assisted housing units owned by non-profits has dropped from 78 percent of units built in the 1960s to just 9 percent of all assisted units built since 2000. Although there are thousands of non-profit-owned units that were built in the 1970s-1990s, this production level was overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of units built by for-profits following the founding of Florida Housing in the early 1980s. Figure 3.7 shows the change in the ownership type over time for assisted units.

Source: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory. The bar representing HUD excludes units whose only HUD funding comes from the Section 542 credit enhancement program. It includes units with rent subsidies or HUD mortgages.

Figure 3.6. Ownership Type by Funder, 2008 (Duplicated Count)

19

HUD’s own relatively brief focus on family housing led off the trend toward family housing development in the 1970s. During that decade, HUD was still the predominant assisted hous-ing funder, providing subsidies to 70 percent of all new units. After funding mostly Section 202 housing for elderly households and persons with disabilities in the 1960s, however, HUD shifted its funding into programs that funded both family and elderly housing in the 1970s. Only 13 percent of HUD-subsidized units in the 1970s received funding from the Section 202 program. As a result, 58 percent of assisted hous-ing units built in the 1970s were family units.

After the 1980s, HUD resumed its em-phasis on units for elderly households and persons with disabilities. The older Section 202 program, which funded housing for both populations, was replaced in 1990 by a newer Section 202 program for elderly housing and the Section 811 program for housing for persons with disabilities.

Figure 3.5 shows the initial predominance of Section 202 units in the HUD inventory in the 1960s, HUD’s focus on family units in the 1970s and 1980s, and its return to an emphasis on Section 202/811 units in recent years, even as overall funding for these programs declined.

Even as HUD moved its emphasis away from family housing in later decades, the shift in housing produc-tion from the federal government to states solidified the predominance of family housing in Florida’s assisted inventory. Florida Housing’s production dwarfed that of HUD, and 87 percent of Florida Housing-sponsored units are in family developments. Increasing production by RD in the 1980s and 1990s and the emergence of LHFAs in the 1990s underscored this family emphasis. Historically, these funders have always directed most of their resources toward family housing.

A second, parallel effect of the federal-to-state/lo-cal shift has been the predominance of for-profit ownership of Florida’s assisted housing. In the early years of assisted housing, HUD directed more subsidies to non-profit than for-profit developers in Florida. In fact, HUD requires non-profit owner-


ship for its Section 202 elderly housing program and Section 811 program for housing for people with disabilities. In all, 63 percent of HUD-assisted units are owned by non-profits, excluding those whose only HUD funding is Section 542 credit enhancement. In contrast, 89 percent of Florida Housing-assisted units are owned by for-profits. Similarly, 92 percent of LHFA-funded units are owned by for-profits, and 78 percent of RD units are owned either by limited dividend corporations (57 percent) or for-profits (21 percent). Figure 3.6 shows the balance of non-profit- and for-profit-owned units for each funder.

As a result, older housing is much more likely to be owned by non-profits than newer developments. The proportion of as-sisted housing units owned by non-profits has dropped from 78 percent of units built in the 1960s to just 9 percent of all assisted units built since 2000. Although there are thousands of non-profit-owned units that were built in the 1970s-1990s, this production level was overwhelmed by the tens of thou-sands of units built by for-profits following the founding of Florida Housing in the early 1980s.

Figure 3.7 shows the change in the ownership type over time for assisted units.

A third presumed effect of this generational shift is a move away from the production of housing that is affordable to tenants with the lowest incomes, due to the shift from older HUD and RD deep subsidy programs to more shallow subsidies such as mortgage revenue bonds and the LIHTC. For example, a national study found that only four percent of units receiving LIHTC assistance in 2004 were affordable to households with incomes of 30 percent of the area median income (Mueller and Schwartz 2008). As noted earlier, more than three-fourths of HUD-funded units serve households at this income level.

The current Assisted Housing Inventory does not allow us to provide an overall comparison of tenant incomes and rents among different assisted housing properties. We expect to add this capacity and to evaluate whether newer assisted housing developments do in fact provide higher income, higher rent housing compared to older developments.

Source: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory.

Figure 3.7. Ownership Type for All Assisted Units by Decade Built or Funded, 2008

34

Figure 3.7. Ownership Type for All Assisted Units by Decade Built or Funded, 2008

4,767

12,0679,467 10,869

4,822

1,504

13,289

24,771

64,806 75,580

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1962-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2008


Assis

ted

Un

its

For-Profit or

Limited Dividend

Non-Profit


A third presumed effect of this generational shift is a move away from the production of housing that is affordable to tenants with the lowest incomes, due to the shift from older HUD and RD deep subsidy programs to more shallow subsidies such as mortgage revenue bonds and the LIHTC. For example, a national study found that only four percent of units receiving LIHTC assistance in 2004 were affordable to households with incomes of 30 percent of the area median income (Mueller and Schwartz 2008). As noted earlier, more than three-fourths of HUD-funded units serve households at this income level. The current Assisted Housing Inventory does not allow us to provide an overall comparison of tenant incomes and rents among different assisted housing properties. We expect to add this capacity and to evaluate whether newer assisted housing developments do in fact provide higher income, higher rent housing compared to older developments.

21

35

However, the current AHI can measure the drop in production of assisted units with project-based rental subsidies. For practical purposes, ongoing rent subsidies are necessary in most markets to make units affordable for tenants with extremely low incomes. In Florida, only slightly over two percent of the 145,103 assisted units produced under the LIHTC program have HUD rent subsidies. As noted earlier, a 2006 study found that an additional nine percent of LIHTC units are occupied by tenants with vouchers, which provide the same benefit. As HUD and RD have pulled back from deep housing subsidies and other state and locally allocated resources have greatly expanded, the share of new assisted units with rental assistance has fallen. Sixty-four percent of units developed before 1990 have rental assistance; only 8 percent of units developed since then do. Figure 3.8 shows the drop in rental assistance units produced and the concurrent, far larger increase in units without rent subsidies in the past four decades. Figure 3.8. Assisted Units by HUD/RD Rental Assistance Status and Decade Built or

Funded, 2008

3,641

19,84422,939

11,101

3,124

3,344

7,895

14,846

71,68583,678

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1962-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2008


Assis

ted U

nits

No Rental Assistance

With Rental Assistance


Figure 3.8. Assisted Units by HUD/RD Rental Assistance Status and Decade Built or Funded, 2008


However, the current AHI can measure the drop in produc-tion of assisted units with project-based rental subsidies. For practical purposes, ongoing rent subsidies are necessary in most markets to make units affordable for tenants with extremely low incomes. In Florida, only slightly over two percent of the 145,103 assisted units produced under the LIHTC program have HUD rent subsidies. As noted earlier, a 2006 study found that an additional nine percent of LIHTC units are occupied by tenants with vouchers, which provide the same benefit.

As HUD and RD have pulled back from deep housing subsidies and other state and locally allocated resources have greatly expanded, the share of new assisted units with rental assistance has fallen. Sixty-four percent of units developed before 1990 have rental assistance; only 8 percent of units de-veloped since then do. Figure 3.8 shows the drop in rental as-sistance units produced and the concurrent, far larger increase in units without rent subsidies in the past four decades.

Appendix 1, “Rent-Subsidized Units,” more fully describes the type and location of Florida’s stock of units with HUD and RD rental assistance, as well as the state’s public housing and voucher inventories.


IV. Preservation of At-Risk Assisted HousingEven as assisted housing production continues to grow in the state, the older assisted housing stock faces two countervail-ing pressures that may result in losses to the subsidized hous-ing inventory: “opt-out” or “time-out” risks, and “fail-out” risks.

Owners of many older properties may opt out of subsidy programs and their income and rent restrictions by prepaying subsidized mortgages or terminating rental assistance con-tracts. Those units that could command higher rents or might be more profitable if converted to condominiums face this opt-out risk. A related risk, time-out risk, refers to properties whose subsidies and use restrictions have expired, and which have not been preserved as assisted housing through subsi-dized refinancing.

Properties at opt-out or time-out risk include those located in strong rental housing markets, with low project rents com-pared to surrounding properties. Others may be at risk simply because the owners of the properties no longer want to work within the administrative or financial constraints of govern-ment programs.

In the near term, opt-outs may become less likely than in the past. The soft housing market makes conversion of rental properties to condominiums much less attractive than in the past. Owners also may not want to risk losing current ten-ants by converting properties to market-rate rental housing. Moreover, it is difficult for owners to secure credit for the rehabilitation required to market the properties to higher-income tenants.

In contrast, aging properties may fail-out from the assisted housing inventory when their physical and financial condition deteriorates. These projects may default on subsidized mort-gages because of inability to pay debt service, unacceptable physical conditions, or both. Alternatively, they may continue as assisted housing but in such poor condition as to threaten tenants’ well-being and safety.

The Shimberg Center has created two profiles of the charac-teristics of properties at each type of risk. Properties in the AHI are identified as at heightened risk for opt-out or time-out if they are eligible to end subsidies by the end of 2020 and meet some or all of these conditions:

• Smaller: less than 50 units;

• Family target population;

• For-Profit or limited dividend ownership;

• Older: assisted under an older HUD program, or built or funded before 1975 if a non-HUD property;

• Not fully funded: with at least two market-rate units;

• Substantially below market-rate: with a project rent-HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR) ratio < 80%;14

• Low poverty neighborhood: poverty rate in surrounding Census block group declined 1990-2000 and is below aver-age for all AHI properties.

Properties are considered at heightened risk of fail-out if they meet some or all of these conditions:

• Family target population;

• Older: built or funded before the end of 1987;

• Serving the lowest income tenants: with an average tenant income at or below 15 percent of AMI (HUD properties only);

• In poor condition: with a REAC physical inspection score below 60.15

The AHI contains data regarding the latter two variables only for properties with HUD assistance, either alone or in combination with funding from another government agency. Therefore, we are able to assess fail-out risk only for HUD-funded properties. In particular, this excludes most RD-funded properties, as only five percent of RD properties in Florida also have funding from HUD.

A full discussion of the methodology used to identify at-risk properties is included as Appendix 3.

Statewide, there are 133 properties with 7,179 assisted units at heightened opt-out/time-out risk. There are 42 properties with 3,856 units at heightened fail-out risk; 12 of these properties with 926 units also show heightened opt-opt/time-out risk.

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the county locations of at-risk as-sisted housing.

14 HUD assigns Fair Market Rents (FMRs) to metropolitan areas to determine allowable payment amounts for Housing Choice Vouchers and several other housing programs. FMRs are estimates of the 40th percentile of gross rents for standard quality units in the private market for the metropolitan area. U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Market Rents for the Section 8 Housing As-sistance Payments Program, July 2007.

15 Physical inspection score as assigned by HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC). A score of 60 and above is considered a pass-ing score. A property with a score below 60 is considered to be in poor physical condition.

23

39

Table 4.1. Assisted Housing Properties with Elevated Opt-Out/Time-Out Risk by County,

2008

County Properties Assisted Units

Share of State's At-

Risk Units

Alachua 4 157 2.2%

Bay 2 46 0.6%

Bradford 2 65 0.9%

Brevard 5 52 0.7%

Broward 6 869 12.1%

Charlotte 1 44 0.6%

Citrus 4 147 2.0%

Clay 2 49 0.7%

Collier 1 100 1.4%

Duval 12 1,413 19.7%

Escambia 6 170 2.4%

Gadsden 1 70 1.0%

Hernando 1 47 0.7%

Highlands 2 71 1.0%

Hillsborough 7 305 4.2%

Jefferson 1 75 1.0%

Lake 9 414 5.8%

Lee 2 122 1.7%

Leon 2 126 1.8%

Levy 4 62 0.9%

Marion 2 72 1.0%

Miami-Dade 7 338 4.7%

Monroe 1 59 0.8%

Nassau 5 173 2.4%

Okaloosa 2 84 1.2%

Okeechobee 1 26 0.4%

Orange 5 255 3.6%

Osceola 3 102 1.4%

Palm Beach 7 235 3.3%

Pasco 7 364 5.1%

Pinellas 3 323 4.5%

Polk 2 68 0.9%

Putnam 1 32 0.4%

Santa Rosa 1 46 0.6%

Seminole 1 108 1.5%

St. Johns 2 120 1.7%

Union 2 80 1.1%

Volusia 7 290 4.0%

Total 133 7179 100.0%


Table 4.1. Assisted Housing Properties with Elevated Opt-Out/Time-Out Risk by County, 2008



40

Table 4.2. Assisted Housing Properties with Elevated Fail-Out Risk by County, 2008

County Properties Assisted Units

Share of State's At-Risk

Units

Alachua 4 401 10.4%

Bay 1 72 1.9%

Bradford 1 60 1.6%

Brevard 2 153 4.0%

Broward 1 96 2.5%

Collier 1 100 2.6%

Duval 13 1,333 34.6%

Gadsden 1 100 2.6%

Highlands 1 36 0.9%

Hillsborough 2 152 3.9%

Jackson 1 100 2.6%

Lee 1 42 1.1%

Leon 1 99 2.6%

Marion 2 244 6.3%

Miami-Dade 3 357 9.3%

Orange 1 24 0.6%

Pasco 1 69 1.8%

Polk 1 132 3.4%

St. Lucie 1 60 1.6%

Taylor 1 100 2.6%

Volusia 2 126 3.3%

Total 42 3,856 100.0%


As these tables show, the units at opt-out risk are spread widely throughout the state, with higher concentrations in Broward and Duval Counties. The units at fail-out risk are more concentrated, with more than half (54 percent) located in just three counties: Duval, Alachua, and Miami-Dade. This geographic concentration may be in part due to the method of counting properties at fail-out risk. The method requires that properties be part of the HUD inventory and excludes nearly all RD-funded properties, thus heavily weighting the properties found toward urban areas. The Shimberg Center also has begun to create an inventory of properties that have already left the assisted housing stock due to expiring use restrictions, mortgage prepayments and foreclosures, and rental assistance contract opt-outs. To date, this inventory includes 396 formerly subsidized properties in Florida.16 These include 172 properties that were developed using state or local mortgage revenue bonds; 86 properties receiving tax credits; 60 properties that formerly had HUD rental assistance; 45 properties with HUD mortgages that have expired, been prepaid, or been terminated by HUD; 28 properties with RD Section 515 mortgages; and 37 properties held by FDIC and monitored by Florida Housing. Note that some properties fall into

16 We cannot yet identify the number of assisted units that were in these properties. The total number of units is

55,877, but these include a number of market-rate units that did not have income or rent restrictions even when the

properties were still under subsidy programs. For example, many of the local bond projects likely contained 80

percent market-rate units and 20 percent income-restricted units.

Table 4.2. Assisted Housing Properties with Elevated Fail-Out Risk by County, 2008


As these tables show, the units at opt-out risk are spread widely throughout the state, with higher concentrations in Broward and Duval Counties. The units at fail-out risk are more concentrated, with more than half (54 percent) located in just three counties: Duval, Alachua, and Miami-Dade. This geographic concentration may be in part due to the method of counting properties at fail-out risk. The method requires that properties be part of the HUD inventory and excludes nearly all RD-funded properties, thus heavily weighting the properties found toward urban areas.

The Shimberg Center also has begun to create an inventory of properties that have already left the assisted housing stock due to expiring use restrictions, mortgage prepayments and

16 We cannot yet identify the number of assisted units that were in these properties. The total number of units is 55,877, but these include a number of market-rate units that did not have income or rent restrictions even when the properties were still under subsidy programs. For example, many of the local bond projects likely contained 80 percent market-rate units and 20 percent income-restricted units.

foreclosures, and rental assistance contract opt-outs. To date, this inventory includes 396 formerly subsidized properties in Florida.16 These include 172 properties that were developed using state or local mortgage revenue bonds; 86 properties receiving tax credits; 60 properties that formerly had HUD rental assistance; 45 properties with HUD mortgages that have expired, been prepaid, or been terminated by HUD; 28 properties with RD Section 515 mortgages; and 37 properties held by FDIC and monitored by Florida Housing. Note that some properties fall into more than one of these categories. Also, a small number of properties were not subsidized by any of these programs but did receive subsidies from other programs such as Florida Housing’s SAIL and Elderly Hous-ing Community Loan programs.

25

V. ConclusionAHI data show large changes in the way affordable multifam-ily housinghas been created in Florida over the forty-year history of assisted housing programs. There has been a significant shift from federal allocation of housing resources to strong state and local involvement.

In the near future, the State of Florida will continue its strong involvement in the allocation of housing funding, but the sources of that funding are shifting back to the federal government. Florida’s housing trust fund has been reduced because of lower revenue collection due to the real estate slowdown and because of transfer of trust fund monies to the state’s general fund. The federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, another major source of housing funding that is allocated by the state, is generating less equity per credit due to the credit crisis and recession; very few buyers are pur-chasing credits, and those that are sold generate less equity. Similarly, few investors are interested in purchasing mort-gage revenue bonds, reducing the resources available to both Florida Housing and local housing finance authorities.

However, the federal government is making a number of new affordable housing resources available for allocation by state and local governments through the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Recovery Act”). First, state and local agencies will allocate new federal housing funds from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). NSP provides funds for acquisition and redevelopment of aban-doned and foreclosed properties. NSP funding may be used to construct housing for low-income households, including multifamily rental housing. In Florida, NSP funds are being allocated by the state Department of Community Affairs, Florida Housing, and local governments. Second, Florida Housing will allocate funds from the Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP), created by the Recovery Act. TCAP pro-vides grant funding for capital investment in LIHTC projects that require additional funding to be placed in service. Third, the Recovery Act created the tax credit Exchange Program, which allows states to swap LIHTC for direct grants. Florida Housing will allocate funds to developments under this program. Finally, Florida Housing will administer any funding that becomes available via the National Housing Trust Fund, established by HERA. The trust fund will create a dedicated source of funding that will be used primarily to produce and preserve assisted rental housing.

In addition to these infusions of federal funding into state housing programs, another trend will be an increased emphasis on the preservation of existing at-risk assisted housing. Beginning in 2007, Florida Housing has set aside $4 million each year from its Low Income Housing Tax Credit allocation for preservation. Florida Housing has launched a pilot program in three counties to provide bridge loans for the preservation of assisted housing, with an emphasis on non-profit organizations’ acquisition of properties with project-based rental assistance. Most recently, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation awarded $1 million to a partnership between Florida Housing, the Shimberg Center, and the Florida Housing Coalition to encourage preservation in the state. The partners will use the funds to build the capacity of non-profits to acquire and preserve at-risk assisted housing and to develop enhanced rental market data. Future State of Florida’s Assisted Rental Housing reports will focus on the units and tenants most affected by the preservation of at-risk housing.

ReferencesHandelman, Ethan, David A. Smith and Thacher Tiffany. “How Massachusetts Can Best Use Its 2009 Affordability Resources.” Recap Advisors Update 72, 2008.

Khadduri, Jill and Charles Wilkins. “Designing Subsidized Rental Housing Programs.” Revisiting Rental Housing: Poli-cies, Programs and Priorities. Ed. Nicolas P. Retsinas and Eric S. Belsky. Washington: Brookings Institution, 2008. 161-90.

Muller, Nancy. “Affordable Housing Delivery System: Rental Housing, Past to Present.” Presentation to the Florida Hous-ing Finance Corporation Board of Directors, 2006.

Smith, Marc, Marta Strambi-Kramer and Anne R. William-son, “The Use of Housing Choice Vouchers in Low Income Housing Tax Credit Developments.” Working Paper. Shim-berg Center for Housing Studies, 2006.

Mueller, Elizabeth J. and Alex Schwartz. “Reversing the Tide: Will State and Local Governments House the Poor as Federal Direct Subsidies Decline?” Journal of the American Planning Association, 74.1 (2008): 122-135.

United States. Department of Agriculture. 2008 Rural Devel-opment Multi-Family Housing Annual Occupancy Report. 2008.


Appendix 1. Rent-Subsidized UnitsIn rent-subsidized housing, tenants are expected to pay 30 percent of their household income for rent, with the federal government paying the difference between this amount and monthly operating costs for the unit. In many markets, these ongoing, deep operating subsidies are the only way to make housing affordable to “extremely low-income” households: those with incomes below 30 percent of the area median income.

The two federal rental housing agencies, HUD and RD, provide rent subsidies in three ways:

• Project-based rental assistance: HUD or RD enters into a contract with a private owner of an assisted housing prop-erty to provide monthly rent subsidies for tenants in some or all units. The property may also have other subsidies in place, such as a HUD or RD mortgage, state funding, or local funding.

• Public housing: These developments are owned by local public housing authorities and receive ongoing rent subsi-dies and capital assistance from HUD. All units in public housing developments are rent-subsidized.

• Tenant-based vouchers. Public housing authorities provide vouchers to individual households that they can take to landlords on the private market. When the tenant finds a unit, the housing authority enters into a contract with the landlord to provide monthly rent subsidies funded by HUD.

Thus, the rent-subsidized housing stock overlaps with the privately owned, assisted housing stock described elsewhere in the report, but is not identical to it. All units with project-

based rental assistance are considered assisted units and are counted in the HUD- and RD-funded inventories described in the main report. Also, some tenant-based vouchers are used in assisted housing units that have received capital fund-ing from HUD, RD, Florida Housing or LHFAs but do not have project-based rental assistance from HUD or RD. Public housing units are considered separate from the assisted hous-ing stock. Figure A1.1 shows the relationship between the rent-subsidized and assisted housing stock.

Statewide, there are 194,430 rent-subsidized units. Vouchers are the largest source of rent-subsidized units, with 94,347 in use. There are 60,649 assisted housing units with project-based rent subsidies, and there are 39,434 public housing units.

Florida’s largest counties—Miami-Dade, Duval, Broward, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Palm Beach and Orange—are home to two-thirds of the state’s rent-subsidized units. Miami-Dade County has a large concentration of rent-subsidized units, especially public housing units and vouchers, The county contains 13 percent of the state’s population but 30 percent of its public housing units and 27 percent of its vouchers.

Thus, rent-subsidized units are concentrated in Florida’s four major metropolitan areas. Vouchers in particular are concentrated in the major metropolitan areas: Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa-St. Petersburg, which contain 75 percent of the state’s vouchers. Similarly, 68 percent of public housing units are concentrated in major metropolitan areas. Because RD units are located in rural areas, the HUD- and RD-funded project-based rental assistance units are less heavily concentrated in major metropolitan areas, with just 60 percent of units.

Table A1.1 and Figures A.1.2-A.1.5 show the county locations of rent-subsidized housing.

27

Figure A1.1. Relationship between Rent-Subsidized and Assisted Housing


48

Table A1.1. Project-Based Rental Assistance, Public Housing, and Vouchers by County, 2008

HUD &

RD

Project-

Based

Rental

Assistance

Units

Share of

State

Total

Public

Housing

Units

Share of

State

Total Vouchers

Share

of State

Total Total

Share of

State

Total

Jacksonville, FL MSA Baker County 102 0.17% 80 0.20% 147 0.16% 329 0.17%

Clay County 304 0.50% 0 0.00% 148 0.16% 452 0.23%

Duval County 7,255 11.96% 3,240 8.22% 6,698 7.10% 17,193 8.84%

Nassau County 360 0.59% 57 0.14% 62 0.07% 479 0.25%

St. Johns County 205 0.34% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 205 0.11%

MSA Total 8,226 13.56% 3,377 8.56% 7,055 7.48% 18,658 9.60%

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano

Beach, FL MSA Broward County 3,302 5.44% 1,657 4.20% 10,135 10.74% 15,094 7.76%

Miami-Dade County 11,248 18.55% 11,848 30.05% 25,660 27.20% 48,756 25.08%

Palm Beach County 2,002 3.30% 2,086 5.29% 6,955 7.37% 11,043 5.68%

MSA Total 16,552 27.29% 15,591 39.54% 42,750 45.31% 74,893 38.52%

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL MSA Lake County 1,142 1.88% 60 0.15% 485 0.51% 1,687 0.87%

Orange County 2,280 3.76% 1,614 4.09% 3,962 4.20% 7,856 4.04%

Osceola County 321 0.53% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 321 0.17%

Seminole County 210 0.35% 510 1.29% 424 0.45% 1,144 0.59%

MSA Total 3,953 6.52% 2,184 5.54% 4,871 5.16% 11,008 5.66%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,

FL MSA Hernando County 161 0.27% 126 0.32% 285 0.30% 572 0.29%

Hillsborough

County 3,813 6.29% 3,681 9.33% 7,209 7.64% 14,703 7.56%

Pasco County 929 1.53% 208 0.53% 1,424 1.51% 2,561 1.32%

Pinellas County 2,830 4.67% 1,733 4.39% 7,022 7.44% 11,585 5.96%

MSA Total 7,733 12.75% 5,748 14.58% 15,940 16.90% 29,421 15.13%

Major Metropolitan Area Total 36,464 60.12% 26,900 68.22% 70,616 74.85% 133,980 68.91%

49

HUD &

RD

Project-

Based

Rental

Assistance

Units

Share of

State

Total

Public

Housing

Units

Share of

State

Total Vouchers

Share

of State

Total Total

Share of

State

Total

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MSA Lee County 1,136 1.87% 1,113 2.82% 211 0.22% 2,460 1.27%

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond

Beach, FL MSA Volusia County 1,463 2.41% 874 2.22% 2,366 2.51% 4,703 2.42%

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-

Destin, FL MSA Okaloosa County 399 0.66% 558 1.42% 854 0.91% 1,811 0.93%

Gainesville, FL MSA Alachua County 1,358 2.24% 911 2.31% 1,699 1.80% 3,968 2.04%

Gilchrist County 58 0.10% 10 0.03% 0 0.00% 68 0.03%

MSA Total 1,416 2.33% 921 2.34% 1,699 1.80% 4,036 2.08%

Lakeland, FL MSA Polk County 2,230 3.68% 1,083 2.75% 1,780 1.89% 5,093 2.62%

Naples-Marco Island, FL MSA Collier County 922 1.52% 0 0.00% 440 0.47% 1,362 0.70%

Ocala, FL MSA Marion County 1,092 1.80% 185 0.47% 1,146 1.21% 2,423 1.25%

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL

MSA Brevard County 1,336 2.20% 1,480 3.75% 2,523 2.67% 5,339 2.75%

Palm Coast, FL MSA Flagler County 101 0.17% 132 0.33% 180 0.19% 413 0.21%

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL MSA Bay County 951 1.57% 490 1.24% 864 0.92% 2,305 1.19%

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL

MSA Escambia County 1,989 3.28% 603 1.53% 2,288 2.43% 4,880 2.51%

Santa Rosa County 169 0.28% 91 0.23% 292 0.31% 552 0.28%

MSA Total 2,158 3.56% 694 1.76% 2,580 2.73% 5,432 2.79%

Port St. Lucie-Ft. Pierce, FL MSA Martin County 397 0.65% 70 0.18% 77 0.08% 544 0.28%

St. Lucie County 276 0.46% 831 2.11% 709 0.75% 1,816 0.93%

Table A1.1. Project-Based Rental Assistance, Public Housing, and Vouchers by County, 2008

29

Table A1.1. Project-Based Rental Assistance, Public Housing, and Vouchers by County, 2008 (continued)

50

HUD &

RD

Project-

Based

Rental

Assistance

Units

Share of

State

Total

Public

Housing

Units

Share of

State

Total Vouchers

Share

of State

Total Total

Share of

State

Total

MSA Total 673 1.11% 901 2.28% 786 0.83% 2,360 1.21%

Punta Gorda, FL MSA Charlotte County 350 0.58% 30 0.08% 341 0.36% 721 0.37%

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL

MSA Manatee County 477 0.79% 488 1.24% 1,475 1.56% 2,440 1.25%

Sarasota County 525 0.87% 575 1.46% 1,198 1.27% 2,298 1.18%

MSA Total 1,002 1.65% 1,063 2.70% 2,673 2.83% 4,738 2.44%

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL MSA Indian River County 454 0.75% 0 0.00% 345 0.37% 799 0.41%

Tallahassee, FL MSA Gadsden County 693 1.14% 14 0.04% 143 0.15% 850 0.44%

Jefferson County 160 0.26% 0 0.00% 129 0.14% 289 0.15%

Leon County 1,499 2.47% 538 1.36% 1,908 2.02% 3,945 2.03%

Wakulla County 48 0.08% 0 0.00% 250 0.26% 298 0.15%

MSA Total 2,400 3.96% 552 1.40% 2,430 2.58% 5,382 2.77%

Remaining Metropolitan Area Total 18,083 29.82% 10,076 25.55% 21,218 22.49% 49,377 25.40%

Northeast Non-Metropolitan Area Bradford County 206 0.34% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 206 0.11%

Columbia County 273 0.45% 80 0.20% 0 0.00% 353 0.18%

Dixie County 29 0.05% 26 0.07% 44 0.05% 99 0.05%

Hamilton County 133 0.22% 86 0.22% 44 0.05% 263 0.14%

Lafayette County 36 0.06% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 36 0.02%

Levy County 255 0.42% 124 0.31% 142 0.15% 521 0.27%

Madison County 243 0.40% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 243 0.12%

Suwannee County 321 0.53% 124 0.31% 0 0.00% 445 0.23%

Taylor County 217 0.36% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 217 0.11%

Union County 77 0.13% 122 0.31% 0 0.00% 199 0.10%

Northeast Non-Metropolitan Total 1,790 2.95% 562 1.43% 230 0.24% 2,582 1.33%

Northwest Non-Metropolitan Area Calhoun County 88 0.15% 34 0.09% 40 0.04% 162 0.08%

51

HUD &

RD

Project-

Based

Rental

Assistance

Units

Share of

State

Total

Public

Housing

Units

Share of

State

Total Vouchers

Share

of State

Total Total

Share of

State

Total

Franklin County 117 0.19% 64 0.16% 32 0.03% 213 0.11%

Gulf County 103 0.17% 40 0.10% 48 0.05% 191 0.10%

Holmes County 75 0.12% 56 0.14% 261 0.28% 392 0.20%

Jackson County 593 0.98% 179 0.45% 306 0.32% 1,078 0.55%

Liberty County 0 0.00% 10 0.03% 23 0.02% 33 0.02%

Walton County 182 0.30% 50 0.13% 364 0.39% 596 0.31%

Washington County 104 0.17% 88 0.22% 155 0.16% 347 0.18%

Northwest Non-Metropolitan Total 1,262 2.08% 521 1.32% 1,229 1.30% 3,012 1.55%

Central Non-Metropolitan Area Citrus County 491 0.81% 0 0.00% 101 0.11% 592 0.30%

Putnam County 589 0.97% 484 1.23% 295 0.31% 1,368 0.70%

Sumter County 310 0.51% 0 0.00% 132 0.14% 442 0.23%

Central Non-Metropolitan Total 1,390 2.29% 484 1.23% 528 0.56% 2,402 1.24%

South Non-Metropolitan Area DeSoto County 121 0.20% 130 0.33% 0 0.00% 251 0.13%

Glades County 26 0.04% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 26 0.01%

Hardee County 218 0.36% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 218 0.11%

Hendry County 284 0.47% 0 0.00% 43 0.05% 327 0.17%

Highlands County 687 1.13% 129 0.33% 27 0.03% 843 0.43%

Monroe County 265 0.44% 632 1.60% 454 0.48% 1,351 0.69%

Okeechobee County 59 0.10% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 59 0.03%

South Non-Metropolitan Total 1,660 2.74% 891 2.26% 524 0.56% 3,075 1.58%

Non-Metropolitan Area Total 6,102 10.06% 2,458 6.23% 2,511 2.66% 11,071 5.69%

State Total 60,649 39,434 94,345 194,428




Figure A1.2. Total Rent-Subsidized Units by County, 2008


Figure A1.3. HUD and RD Project-Based Rental Assistance Units, 2008


31

Figure A1.4. Public Housing Units by County, 2008


Figure A1.5. Vouchers in Use by County, 2008



56

Appendix 2. Data Tables

Table A2.1. Assisted Housing Units by Funder, MSA and County, 2008 (Duplicated Count)

HUD RD

Florida

Housing LHFA

Jacksonville, FL MSA Baker County 102 0 50 0

Clay County 367 403 1,201 260

Duval County 8,859 139 13,926 3,364

Nassau County 44 576 333 192

St. Johns County 448 118 1,107 560

MSA Total 9,820 1,236 16,617 4,376

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL MSA Broward County 4,685 176 10,181 7,503

Miami-Dade County 13,405 1,117 24,638 7,944

Palm Beach County 4,296 1,105 9,356 3,626

MSA Total 22,386 2,398 44,175 19,073

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL MSA Lake County 1,076 1,547 3,446 632

Orange County 5,279 555 25,423 6,970

Osceola County 435 488 5,389 1,333

Seminole County 1,341 0 4,951 2,541

MSA Total 8,131 2,590 39,209 11,476

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA Hernando County 30 297 1,014 0

Hillsborough County 5,901 318 17,167 3,912

Pasco County 697 929 1,357 440

Pinellas County 5,227 0 4,096 2,346

MSA Total 11,855 1,544 23,634 6,698

Major Metropolitan Area Total 52,192 7,768 123,635 41,623

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MSA Lee County 1,863 137 4,099 775

57

HUD RD

Florida

Housing LHFA

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL MSA Volusia County 2,182 553 4,399 1,450

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL MSA Okaloosa County 196 365 670 0

Gainesville, FL MSA Alachua County 1,863 180 2,106 866

Gilchrist County 36 60 0 0

MSA Total 1,899 240 2,106 866

Lakeland, FL MSA Polk County 2,169 1,538 2,880 712

Naples-Marco Island, FL MSA Collier County 1,624 959 4,964 546

Ocala, FL MSA Marion County 1,016 299 1,674 344

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA Brevard County 1,536 0 3,947 924

Palm Coast, FL MSA Flagler County 0 140 216 0

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL MSA Bay County 1,345 397 1,300 320

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL MSA Escambia County 2,116 303 1,819 160

Santa Rosa County 50 350 375 0

MSA Total 2,166 653 2,194 160

Port St. Lucie-Ft. Pierce, FL MSA Martin County 124 361 886 0

St. Lucie County 882 0 2,381 71

MSA Total 1,006 361 3,267 71

Punta Gorda, FL MSA Charlotte County 717 70 1,571 264

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL MSA Manatee County 929 198 3,057 1,093

Sarasota County 990 80 1,931 296

MSA Total 1,919 278 4,988 1,389

Table A2.1. Assisted Housing Units by Funder, MSA and County, 2008 (Duplicated Count)

Appendix 2. Data Tables

33

Table A2.1. Assisted Housing Units by Funder, MSA and County, 2008 (Duplicated Count) (continued)

58

HUD RD

Florida

Housing LHFA

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL MSA Indian River County 412 474 2,609 0

Tallahassee, FL MSA Gadsden County 404 526 432 0

Jefferson County 75 96 36 0

Leon County 1,422 238 2,474 342

Wakulla County 0 64 64 0

MSA Total 1,901 924 3,006 342

Remaining Metropolitan Area Total 21,951 7,388 43,890 8,163

Northeast Non-Metropolitan Area Bradford County 106 269 157 0

Columbia County 85 240 397 0

Dixie County 0 32 0 0

Hamilton County 0 147 109 0

Lafayette County 36 36 0 0

Levy County 54 223 233 0

Madison County 148 117 116 0

Suwannee County 212 167 210 0

Taylor County 100 137 37 0

Union County 48 80 0 0

Northeast Non-Metropolitan Total 789 1,448 1,259 0

Northwest Non-Metropolitan Area Calhoun County 50 88 0 0

Franklin County 0 121 85 0

Gulf County 0 113 0 0

Holmes County 0 81 38 0

Jackson County 320 438 338 0

Liberty County 0 0 0 0

Walton County 98 157 51 0

Washington County 0 110 33 0

Northwest Non-Metropolitan Total 468 1,108 545 0

Central Non-Metropolitan Area Citrus County 49 656 452 0

Putnam County 260 524 525 0

59

HUD RD

Florida

Housing LHFA

Sumter County 0 353 262 0

Central Non-Metropolitan Total 309 1,533 1,239 0

South Non-Metropolitan Area DeSoto County 0 171 598 0

Glades County 0 28 0 0

Hardee County 95 197 559 0

Hendry County 126 185 329 0

Highlands County 153 625 584 0

Monroe County 279 0 860 0

Okeechobee County 0 60 301 0

South Non-Metropolitan Total 653 1,266 3,231 0

Non-Metropolitan Area Total 2,219 5,355 6,274 0

State Total 76,362 20,511 173,799 49,786

Source: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory. “Duplicated count” means that units appear in more than one column if they receive

funding from more than one source. Therefore, the sum of the total units for each funder is higher than the total number of units in the inventory.

Source: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory. “Duplicated count” means that units appear in more than one column if they receive funding from more than one source. Therefore, the sum of the total units for all funders is higher than the total number of units in the inventory.


Figure A2.1. HUD-Funded Units by County, 2008


Figure A2.2. RD-Funded Units by County, 2008


35

Figure A2.3. Florida Housing-Funded Units by County, 2008



Figure A2.4. LHFA-Funded Units by County, 2008


65

Table A2.2. Assisted Housing Units by Ownership Type, MSA and County, 2008

For-Profit

Limited

Dividend Non-Profit

Other/Not

Available Total

Jacksonville, FL MSA Baker County 52 0 50 0 102

Clay County 1,166 348 0 0 1,514

Duval County 16,710 1,018 4,836 201 22,765

Nassau County 377 409 0 0 786

St. Johns County 1,409 68 42 0 1,519

MSA Total 19,714 1,843 4,928 201 26,686

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL MSA Broward County 9,749 773 2,848 1,922 15,292

Miami-Dade County 21,899 691 12,755 1,691 37,036

Palm Beach County 8,150 570 2,906 1,309 12,935

MSA Total 39,798 2,034 18,509 4,922 65,263

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL MSA Lake County 3,334 1,279 205 330 5,148

Orange County 27,092 570 3,729 532 31,923

Osceola County 5,162 488 312 0 5,962

Seminole County 5,801 108 256 0 6,165

MSA Total 41,389 2,445 4,502 862 49,198

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA Hernando County 999 202 30 0 1,231

Hillsborough County 16,305 676 3,798 637 21,416

Pasco County 1,213 745 656 173 2,787

Pinellas County 3,222 490 4,082 1,820 9,614

MSA Total 21,739 2,113 8,566 2,630 35,048

Major Metropolitan Area Total 122,640 8,435 36,505 8,615 176,195

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MSA Lee County 3,875 80 1,821 110 5,886

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL MSA Volusia County 4,275 422 1,321 429 6,447

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL MSA Okaloosa County 718 333 148 0 1,199

66

For-Profit

Limited

Dividend Non-Profit

Other/Not

Available Total

Gainesville, FL MSA Alachua County 2,436 380 627 154 3,597

Gilchrist County 36 24 0 0 60

MSA Total 2,472 404 627 154 3,657

Lakeland, FL MSA Polk County 2,964 1,158 1,304 294 5,720

Naples-Marco Island, FL MSA Collier County 4,945 436 822 32 6,235

Ocala, FL MSA Marion County 1,397 604 765 83 2,849

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA Brevard County 4,534 14 980 95 5,623

Palm Coast, FL MSA Flagler County 216 52 0 0 268

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL MSA Bay County 1,547 651 252 0 2,450

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL MSA Escambia County 2,178 504 1,077 0 3,759

Santa Rosa County 425 300 0 0 725

MSA Total 2,603 804 1,077 0 4,484

Port St. Lucie-Ft. Pierce, FL MSA Martin County 736 211 274 0 1,221

St. Lucie County 2,201 0 154 264 2,619

MSA Total 2,937 211 428 264 3,840

Punta Gorda, FL MSA Charlotte County 1,540 0 534 0 2,074

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL MSA Manatee County 3,153 106 593 569 4,421

Sarasota County 1,705 38 694 0 2,437

MSA Total 4,858 144 1,287 569 6,858

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL MSA Indian River County 2,377 50 528 189 3,144

Tallahassee, FL MSA Gadsden County 636 245 187 0 1,068

Table A2.2. Assisted Housing Units by Ownership

37

67

For-Profit

Limited

Dividend Non-Profit

Other/Not

Available Total

Jefferson County 111 60 0 0 171

Leon County 2,847 581 771 70 4,269

Wakulla County 64 0 0 0 64

MSA Total 3,658 886 958 70 5,572

Remaining Metropolitan Area Total 44,916 6,249 12,852 2,289 66,306

Northeast Non-Metropolitan Area Bradford County 263 223 0 0 486

Columbia County 469 175 13 0 657

Dixie County 0 32 0 0 32

Hamilton County 109 38 0 0 147

Lafayette County 0 36 0 0 36

Levy County 233 212 0 0 445

Madison County 264 73 0 0 337

Suwannee County 142 135 180 0 457

Taylor County 137 100 0 0 237

Union County 48 32 0 0 80

Northeast Non-Metropolitan Total 1,665 1,056 193 0 2,914

Northwest Non-Metropolitan Area Calhoun County 50 38 0 0 88

Franklin County 85 36 0 0 121

Gulf County 0 113 0 0 113

Holmes County 38 43 0 0 81

Jackson County 570 163 40 48 821

Liberty County 0 0 0 0 0

Walton County 149 56 0 0 205

Washington County 33 77 0 0 110

Northwest Non-Metropolitan Total 925 526 40 48 1,539

Central Non-Metropolitan Area Citrus County 402 419 99 0 920

Putnam County 399 421 344 0 1,164

Sumter County 262 223 0 0 485

Central Non-Metropolitan Total 1,063 1,063 443 0 2,569

68

For-Profit

Limited

Dividend Non-Profit

Other/Not

Available Total

South Non-Metropolitan Area DeSoto County 534 34 64 0 632

Glades County 0 28 0 0 28

Hardee County 516 51 98 0 665

Hendry County 329 0 243 0 572

Highlands County 478 330 392 0 1,200

Monroe County 384 130 365 0 879

Okeechobee County 214 26 87 0 327

South Non-Metropolitan Total 2,455 599 1,249 0 4,303

Non-Metropolitan Area Total 6,108 3,244 1,925 48 11,325

State Total 173,664 17,928 51,282 10,952 253,826

Source: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory Source: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, Assisted Housing Inventory

Table A2.2. Assisted Housing Units by Ownership (continued)


Table A2.3. Assisted Housing Properties and Units by Program and State

Tab

le A

2.3

. A

ssis

ted

Hou

sin

g P

rop

erti

es a

nd

Un

its

by P

rogra

m a

nd

Sta

te

H

UD

F

lorid

a H

ou

sin

g

RD

Pro

ject-

Ba

sed

Ren

tal

Ass

ista

nce P

ro

gra

ms

Mo

rtg

ag

e I

nte

rest

Su

bsi

dy

Pro

gra

ms,

Secti

on

23

6 a

nd

22

1(d

)(3

)BM

IR

HU

D E

lderly

an

d D

isa

ble

d

Pro

gra

ms:

Secti

on

20

2 a

nd

81

1

Lo

w I

nco

me H

ou

sin

g T

ax

Cred

it

Pro

gra

m

Secti

on

51

5 a

nd

51

4/5

16

P

ro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Ala

bam

a 3

67

1

8,5

44

2

5

29

3

,31

8

23

1

62

6

,29

7

18

5

58

2

5,6

33

1

7

48

0

15

,69

8

8

Ala

ska

61

1

,64

4

52

3

1

74

5

3

35

3

48

5

2

66

2

,35

2

51

4

0

89

4

50

Ari

zon

a 1

65

9

,52

2

37

1

5

1,3

24

3

9

96

4

,22

5

29

2

68

2

1,0

98

2

2

12

6

3,8

80

3

6

Ark

ansa

s 3

45

1

3,0

17

3

2

19

1

,58

8

36

2

31

5

,13

6

22

3

17

1

4,4

07

3

1

50

9

10

,45

7

19

Cal

ifo

rnia

1

,65

6

10

9,6

99

2

3

13

2

9,0

53

2

6

21

3

2,1

05

1

1

,82

4

13

5,8

48

1

4

97

2

3,7

08

2

Co

lora

do

3

24

1

7,7

27

2

6

27

3

,52

1

22

9

4

3,0

78

3

3

32

5

19

,36

0

25

1

41

3

,95

7

35

Co

nn

ecti

cut

38

0

25

,26

7

20

5

4

7,2

40

1

3

11

8

4,4

24

2

6

19

0

9,7

82

3

7

65

2

,48

2

42

Del

awar

e 8

9

5,2

69

4

3

2

28

6

52

4

1

1,3

21

4

3

91

5

,55

1

44

5

5

1,6

83

4

7

Dis

tric

t o

f

Co

lum

bia

9

9

10

,61

1

36

1

9

2,8

80

2

7

29

1

,73

3

39

6

6

10

,58

8

36

0

0

5

4

Flo

rid

a

66

0

48

,74

0

10

7

2

11

,89

5

7

33

3

21

,85

1

3

77

3

11

4,2

62

3

4

58

2

0,6

37

4

Geo

rgia

4

47

2

9,9

56

1

6

72

7

,75

3

12

1

92

6

,92

5

15

5

34

3

6,3

65

1

2

45

2

15

,79

8

7

Gu

am

1

49

5

4

0

0

54

0

0

5

4

0

0

54

1

4

9

53

Haw

aii

95

3

,68

0

47

1

6

2,8

30

2

8

55

1

,07

9

44

4

1

3,3

46

5

0

28

9

96

4

9

Idah

o

13

4

4,1

70

4

6

15

6

02

4

5

29

9

18

4

8

15

7

6,1

83

4

2

19

0

4,7

72

3

3

Illi

no

is

82

0

70

,21

2

4

74

1

1,3

93

8

2

65

1

1,9

57

7

8

52

4

2,5

95

8

6

22

1

0,9

29

1

8

Ind

ian

a 4

98

3

2,1

00

1

5

82

8

,87

6

10

1

74

6

,62

0

16

6

95

1

9,7

59

2

3

55

6

14

,13

5

11

Iow

a 2

83

1

3,4

60

3

1

23

2

,07

6

32

1

16

4

,39

1

27

4

55

1

4,6

10

3

0

54

6

10

,23

0

23

Kan

sas

30

0

12

,17

8

33

3

3

2,0

01

3

3

10

9

3,0

10

3

4

38

2

18

,99

9

27

3

62

6

,55

2

29

Ken

tuck

y

48

8

25

,00

4

21

5

2

5,6

68

1

5

17

0

4,6

62

2

5

52

6

13

,83

2

32

4

48

1

2,1

29

1

5

Lo

uis

ian

a 2

65

1

6,7

36

2

8

33

4

,06

6

21

1

28

5

,15

0

21

5

15

2

4,6

85

1

9

39

5

12

,59

0

14

Mai

ne

29

2

8,9

12

3

8

8

52

1

46

7

0

1,6

08

4

1

19

2

5,9

27

4

3

35

5

8,2

32

2

5

39

H

UD

F

lorid

a H

ou

sin

g

RD

Pro

ject-

Ba

sed

Ren

tal

Ass

ista

nce P

ro

gra

ms

Mo

rtg

ag

e I

nte

rest

Su

bsi

dy

Pro

gra

ms,

Secti

on

23

6 a

nd

22

1(d

)(3

)BM

IR

HU

D E

lderly

an

d D

isa

ble

d

Pro

gra

ms:

Secti

on

20

2 a

nd

81

1

Lo

w I

nco

me H

ou

sin

g T

ax

Cred

it

Pro

gra

m

Secti

on

51

5 a

nd

51

4/5

16

P

ro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Mar

yla

nd

4

10

2

7,5

03

1

9

55

7

,05

5

14

2

00

8

,79

0

12

4

57

2

5,3

39

1

8

16

9

5,3

92

3

2

Mas

sach

use

tts

82

7

62

,01

4

6

12

9

20

,20

7

4

28

3

9,3

17

1

0

45

6

30

,06

1

14

6

8

2,0

07

4

5

Mic

hig

an

68

0

59

,39

3

7

17

2

22

,58

4

3

18

9

11

,56

3

8

1,0

86

5

4,3

41

6

6

97

1

8,6

79

5

Min

nes

ota

6

58

3

3,2

82

1

2

50

4

,80

1

19

1

71

6

,61

1

17

5

94

2

1,8

60

2

1

63

2

11

,60

7

17

Mis

siss

ipp

i 3

19

1

7,5

91

2

7

21

2

,17

6

31

1

14

3

,79

3

31

4

65

1

4,9

57

2

9

53

9

15

,48

3

9

Mis

sou

ri

49

8

28

,64

5

18

4

7

5,3

01

1

8

20

2

8,7

97

1

1

1,4

62

4

1,7

58

9

7

77

1

8,1

76

6

Mo

nta

na

11

4

4,7

65

4

4

17

1

,49

4

37

2

7

1,0

23

4

5

14

3

3,9

42

4

8

16

0

2,5

46

4

1

Neb

rask

a 2

30

7

,30

7

39

1

7

1,4

27

3

8

87

2

,37

3

35

3

35

8

,85

7

38

2

53

3

,73

0

37

Nev

ada

54

3

,53

5

49

5

4

97

4

7

25

1

,00

1

46

1

44

1

2,1

29

3

3

70

2

,06

2

44

New

Ham

psh

ire

18

0

6,7

91

4

0

9

97

5

41

5

8

1,5

31

4

2

13

5

4,8

43

4

6

88

2

,54

9

40

New

Jer

sey

6

19

5

1,8

75

9

8

7

10

,81

3

9

25

4

10

,58

6

9

27

9

19

,00

8

26

1

01

3

,35

7

38

New

Mex

ico

1

21

6

,14

3

41

6

6

22

4

3

54

1

,68

9

40

2

22

1

1,7

90

3

4

11

4

4,1

16

3

4

New

Yo

rk

1,3

79

1

19

,59

7

1

21

7

45

,52

8

1

55

5

28

,86

9

2

1,8

96

6

9,3

98

5

4

64

1

3,1

48

1

2

No

rth

Car

oli

na

85

0

29

,50

3

17

2

6

2,7

19

2

9

36

9

7,1

81

1

4

1,5

54

3

7,8

45

1

1

63

3

22

,50

1

3

No

rth

Dak

ota

1

37

3

,47

7

50

7

6

16

4

4

19

4

39

5

1

12

2

3,4

73

4

9

21

8

3,0

86

3

9

Oh

io

1,1

98

7

7,9

35

3

1

31

1

3,6

44

6

4

71

1

9,9

29

4

1

,27

8

70

,08

5

4

39

9

14

,75

5

10

Ok

lah

om

a 2

51

1

4,7

55

3

0

34

3

,12

1

25

1

16

3

,94

7

30

3

77

1

9,7

02

2

4

29

4

8,0

81

2

6

Ore

go

n

33

4

11

,73

7

34

3

7

1,9

47

3

4

10

4

3,5

52

3

2

45

3

22

,90

9

20

2

08

6

,24

8

31

Pen

nsy

lvan

ia

91

4

65

,58

2

5

13

1

15

,52

0

5

38

5

19

,34

3

5

1,3

31

3

4,2

71

1

3

31

1

10

,31

4

21

Pu

erto

Ric

o

19

4

19

,85

2

23

1

9

4,5

68

2

0

63

4

,29

9

28

1

28

8

,03

9

39

1

11

6

,49

7

30

Rh

od

e Is

lan

d

21

3

16

,56

5

29

2

5

2,4

34

3

0

68

2

,07

7

36

1

32

6

,88

5

41

1

2

42

1

52

So

uth

Car

oli

na

38

4

20

,05

9

22

1

5

1,5

97

3

5

18

8

5,0

14

2

4

44

1

18

,34

9

28

3

34

1

1,9

51

1

6

Table A2.3. Assisted Housing Properties and Units by Program and State (continued)


Table A2.3. Assisted Housing Properties and Units by Program and State (continued)

H

UD

F

lorid

a H

ou

sin

g

RD

Pro

ject-

Ba

sed

Ren

tal

Ass

ista

nce P

ro

gra

ms

Mo

rtg

ag

e I

nte

rest

Su

bsi

dy

Pro

gra

ms,

Secti

on

23

6 a

nd

22

1(d

)(3

)BM

IR

HU

D E

lderly

an

d D

isa

ble

d

Pro

gra

ms:

Secti

on

20

2 a

nd

81

1

Lo

w I

nco

me H

ou

sin

g T

ax

Cred

it

Pro

gra

m

Secti

on

51

5 a

nd

51

4/5

16

P

ro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

Pro

perti

es

Ass

iste

d

Un

its

Ra

nk

by

Un

its

So

uth

Dak

ota

2

13

6

,11

0

42

1

4

65

5

42

1

7

44

1

50

1

89

5

,42

7

45

4

13

6

,64

1

28

Ten

nes

see

52

4

32

,21

6

14

4

2

5,5

84

1

6

24

4

7,8

10

1

3

67

6

26

,92

6

16

3

90

1

2,8

52

1

3

Tex

as

78

7

56

,32

6

8

76

7

,87

5

11

2

97

1

4,4

86

6

1

,43

5

12

6,0

13

2

7

67

2

5,7

48

1

Uta

h

10

5

4,7

01

4

5

8

47

6

48

4

1

1,8

23

3

7

20

8

10

,66

6

35

8

6

2,1

26

4

3

Ver

mo

nt

15

3

3,6

62

4

8

3

35

6

50

2

8

46

5

49

1

85

4

,33

5

47

1

40

1

,68

7

46

Vir

gin

Isl

and

s 1

6

1,4

60

5

3

4

47

2

49

5

1

29

5

3

21

6

28

5

3

18

4

52

5

1

Vir

gin

ia

46

3

32

,68

7

13

4

9

5,4

48

1

7

18

8

5,0

97

2

3

67

2

49

,58

6

7

26

3

10

,31

3

22

Was

hin

gto

n

44

6

19

,12

7

24

4

5

3,0

57

2

6

14

4

5,2

18

2

0

67

6

41

,47

8

10

3

23

9

,49

7

24

Wes

t V

irg

inia

2

19

1

1,4

47

3

5

9

1,0

35

4

0

60

1

,79

8

38

1

96

7

,05

9

40

2

45

7

,10

0

27

Wis

con

sin

6

61

3

3,5

19

1

1

40

3

,27

1

24

2

16

5

,54

7

19

7

78

2

7,2

19

1

5

51

1

10

,34

7

20

Wy

om

ing

6

9

2,4

02

5

1

6

31

0

51

3

2

93

1

47

5

7

2,2

47

5

2

56

1

,53

9

48

To

tal

21

,98

9 1

,36

8,0

60

2,5

14

3

05

,25

0

8

,34

2

33

2,3

07

27

,41

0

1,3

86

,60

7

1

6,1

90

4

54

,81

6

41

Notes:These are NOT unduplicated counts. A property or unit may receive funding under more than one of the five program categories.

The HUD Project-Based Rental Assistance category includes the various HUD Section 8 project-based programs (e.g., LMSA, S.8 New Construction), older Rent Supplement contracts, Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRACs, the rental assistance component of Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly and Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities), and Project Assistance Contracts (PACs, rental assistance that can be attached to units in properties with Section 202 Direct Loans).

The HUD Elderly and Disabled Programs category includes Section 202 Direct Loans and the Section 202 and 811 Capital Advance programs. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program category includes properties placed in service between 1987 and 2005. For three of the states, the number of assisted units appears to be in error; these figures appear in italics.

Sources:HUD Project-Based Rental Assistance Programs: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2008. Multifamily Assistance and Section 8 Contracts Database as of 12/04/2008. http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/exp/mfhdiscl.cfm

HUD Mortgage Interest Subsidy Programs: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2008. Insured Multifamily Mortgages Database as of 09/30/2008. http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/comp/rpts/mfh/mf_f47.cfm; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2006. Active Section 236 Projects as of 06/20/2006. http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/map/actloan/activesec236proj.cfm

HUD Elderly and Disabled Programs: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2006. Active Section 202 Loans as of 06/20/2006. http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/map/actloan/activesec202loans.cfm

Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2008. LIHTC Database. http://lihtc.huduser.org/

Section 515 and 514/516: U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development. 2008. Results of the 2008 Multi-Family Housing Annual Fair Housing Occupancy Report. Unnumbered Letter May 2008. http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/regs/ul/ulmay08.pdf


Appendix 3. Descriptions of Assisted Housing ProgramsThis description of assisted housing programs is taken from the AHI User Guide at http://flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu/AHI_User_Guide_2008.html.

Programs Administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

• Rental Assistance/HUD: HUD provides project-based rental subsidies for units in multifamily developments un-der programs such as the Section 8 Loan Management Set-Aside, Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Reha-bilitation programs. Rental assistance is typically restricted to households with incomes at or below 50 percent of the area median income. It provides a subsidy so that income-qualified households do not spend more than 30 percent of their monthly gross income on rent and utilities. Many rental assistance contracts now have a one year term and are typically renewed annually, subject to Congressional appropriation.

• Section 202 Capital Advance: The Section 202 Support-ive Housing for the Elderly program started in 1991 and provides a 40-year interest-free capital advance to private, nonprofit sponsors to finance development, rehabilitation or acquisition of supportive housing for very low-income elderly persons (at least 62 years of age) at or below 50 percent of the area median income. The program also has a project-based rental assistance component that limits the rent payments of residents to 30 percent of income; in the Assisted Housing Inventory this is categorized as ‘Rental Assistance/HUD’.

• Section 202 Direct Loan: The Section 202 Direct Loan Program for the Elderly or Handicapped provided direct loans to private developers for the construction of hous-ing for the elderly or persons with disabilities. In 1990, this program was replaced by the Section 202 Capital Advance and Section 811 Capital Advance programs. Florida still has many properties that were originally funded under the Section 202 Direct Loan program. Many of these proper-ties also receive HUD project-based rental assistance that limits the rent payments of residents to 30 percent of income; in the Assisted Housing Inventory this is catego-rized as ‘Rental/Assistance/HUD’.

• Section 221(d)(3) BMIR: The Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate program provided below market interest rate mortgages to private for-profit and non-profit developers during the 1960s. The mortgage term was 40 years with the option for many for-profit developers to

prepay after 20 years. Income limits are set at 80 percent of area median income, although the majority of units serve households at or below 50 percent of area median income. Many properties built under this program also re-ceive HUD project-based rental assistance; in the Assisted Housing Inventory this is categorized ‘Rental/Assistance/HUD’.

• Section 236: The Section 236 program provided mort-gages at a one percent interest rate to private for-profit and non-profit developers during the late 1960s to early 1970s. The mortgage term was 40 years with the option for many for-profit developers to prepay after 20 years. Income limits are set at 80 percent of area median income, although the majority of units serve households at or below 50 percent of area median income. Many properties built under this program also receive HUD project-based rental assistance; in the Assisted Housing Inventory this is categorized as ‘Rental Assistance/HUD’.

• Section 542: Section 542 is a risk-sharing program that provides credit enhancement through mortgage insur-ance for multifamily housing developments. HUD enters into risk-sharing agreements with state and local housing finance agencies and with Qualified Participating Entities. This program has no income or rent restrictions and is therefore only reported in the Assisted Housing Inventory if a development is also funded under programs that do impose restrictions.

• Section 811 Capital Advance: The Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program started in 1991 and provides a 40-year interest-free capital advance to nonprofit organizations for construction, rehabilitation or acquisition of rental housing with the availability of supportive services for adults with disabilities at or below 50 percent of the area median income. Section 811 also has a project-based rental assistance component that limits the rent payments of tenants to 30 percent of income; in the Assisted Housing Inventory this is categorized as ‘Rental/Assistance/HUD’.

Note that the AHI does not track properties subsidized by HUD’s Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation (Mod Rehab) pro-gram or for properties receiving HOME funding allocated by city or county governments. These properties are not tracked in HUD’s regular multifamily databases. The AHI does include properties funded by HOME dollars allocated by the state of Florida.

Also, several HUD mortgage, insurance, and refinancing programs do not impose income or rent restrictions and therefore are only reported in the AHI if the property also has HUD project-based rental assistance. These include Refi Section 221(d)(3) MR, Refi Section 221(d)(4), Section 207, Section 221(d)(3) MR, Section 221(d)(4), Section 223(f) Refi/Purchase, and Section 231.

43

Programs Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development

• Rental Assistance/RD: Section 521 Rental Assistance is a project-based tenant subsidy program that is used in con-junction with Section 515 and Section 514/516. It imposes both income and rent restrictions.

• Section 514/516: Section 514/516 can be used to finance on-farm rental housing as well as off-farm rental housing outside rural areas where needed to house those who work on nearby farms. Loans and grants are provided to farm workers, family farm organizations, state and local pub-lic agencies, and non-profit and for-profit organizations. This program can be combined with Section 521 Rental Assistance. Tenants must be income eligible. They receive priority based on the proportion of income received from farm work.

• Section 515: Section 515 is a direct loan program that provides mortgages at a one percent interest rate to non-profit and for-profit developers to build rural multifamily rental housing. Loans currently have 30 year terms and an amortization period of 50 years. Eligible tenants include very low, low and moderate-income households, with priority to families living in substandard housing. More than 94 percent of residents have incomes at or below 50 percent of the area median income and more than half are elderly or persons with disabilities. Tenants can receive rental assistance to restrict their rent payments to 30 per-cent of their gross household income under the Section 521 Rental Assistance program.

Programs Administered by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation

• Demonstration Project: A development is designated a Demonstration Project to provide funds for housing of various special needs groups, including persons with dis-abilities, farm workers, extremely low-income or homeless Floridians, and elders in need of assisted living.

• Elderly Housing Community Loan Program: The Elderly Housing Community Loan (EHCL) program provides loans to developers that are making improvements to el-derly housing. These include sanitation repairs or improve-ments required by federal, state or local regulation codes, as well as life safety or security-related improvements.

• Farmworker Housing Supportive Housing: Farmworker Housing Supportive Housing (FHSH) refers to two programs: The Farmworker Housing Recovery Program (FHRP) and the Special Housing Assistance and Develop-ment Program (SHADP). FHRP provides flexible fund-

ing toward the construction or rehabilitation of housing in the form of loans. The program targets agricultural areas impacted by the 2004 and 2005 storms. It prioritizes rental housing solutions for migrant farmworkers. SHADP makes flexible funding available for smaller rental develop-ments for hard-to-serve populations such as persons with a disability, frail elders and people who are homeless. It targets areas impacted by the 2004 and 2005 storms.

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): The developments under FDIC were part of the remaining balance of real estate assets of the Resolution Trust Cor-poration. These developments have 40 year use restriction periods and are monitored by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.

• Guarantee: The Florida Affordable Housing Guarantee Program is a credit enhancement program that works in concert with federal, state and local government financing sources, as well as other qualified lending institutions. The Guarantee effectively lowers the overall cost of borrowing capital for the construction and rehabilitation of afford-able multifamily rental housing by guaranteeing payment of mortgages that secure multifamily mortgage revenue bonds.

• Housing Credits 4%: The Low Income Housing Tax Cred-it Program - 4% provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit over ten years against federal tax liability in exchange for the new construction or acquisition and substantial rehabilita-tion of affordable rental housing units by nonprofit and for-profit organizations. This is a non-competitive alloca-tion of tax credits paired with state and local bonds. At least 20 percent of units are to be set aside for households at or below 50 percent of AMI, or at least 40 percent of units are to be set aside for households at or below 60 percent AMI. Rent restrictions are also in place.

• Housing Credits 9%: The Low Income Housing Tax Cred-it Program - 9% provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit over ten years against federal tax liability in exchange for the new construction or acquisition and substantial rehabilita-tion of affordable rental housing units by nonprofit and for-profit organizations. This is a competitive allocation of tax credits. At least 20 percent of units are to be set aside for households at or below 50 percent of AMI, or at least 40 percent of units are to be set aside for households at or below 60 percent AMI. Rent restrictions are also in place.

• Predevelopment Loan Program (PLP): The Predevelop-ment Loan Program (PLP) provides below-market interest rate financing and technical assistance to non-profit orga-nizations for pre-development activities to plan, finance and develop affordable housing. This program has no income or rent restrictions and is therefore only reported in the Assisted Housing Inventory if a development is also funded under programs that do impose restrictions.


• Rental Recovery Loan Program (RRLP): Funding under the Rental Recovery Loan Program leverages available state and local bonds and private capital to build and rehabilitate affordable rental housing to help communities respond to their hurricane recovery needs. The funds pro-vide gap financing to help create rental communities that will be affordable for at least 50 years and will include a meaningful percentage of units that are set aside for those with extremely low incomes. Twenty-five percent of the program funds is targeted to developments serving elders.

• SAIL: The State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) pro-gram provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers to bridge the gap between the development’s primary financing and the total cost of the development. SAIL is funded through the State Housing Trust Fund. A minimum of 20 percent of units must be set aside for families earning 50 percent or less of area median income. Developments that also have hous-ing credits may use a minimum set-aside of 40 percent of the units for residents earning 60 percent of area median income. There are no rent restrictions.

• State Bonds: The Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond program (MMRB) uses both taxable and tax-exempt bonds to provide below market rate loans to nonprofit and for-profit developers who set aside a certain percent-age of their apartment units for low-income families. The program requires that at least 20 percent of the units be set aside for households earning at or below 50 percent of the area median income. The developer may also opt to set aside 40 percent of the units for households earning at or below 60 percent of area median. There are no rent restrictions.

• State HOME: The HOME Investment Partnerships Program provides non-amortized, low interest loans to developers for acquisition and/or new construction or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing to low-income families. Twenty percent of the units are occupied by fami-lies with annual incomes at or below 50 percent of area median income; the balance of the units must be occupied by families with income that do not exceed 60 percent of area median. Rent restrictions are also in place.

Program Administered by Local Housing Finance Authorities

• Local Bonds: Local housing finance authorities may issue tax-exempt Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds. These tax-exempt bonds provide financing at lower-than-market rates for affordable multifamily housing developments. Income restrictions are imposed, but no rent restrictions.

45

Appendix 4. Preservation Risk Assessment MethodologyThis description of the Shimberg Center’s method for assessing opt-out and fail-out risks for properties in the AHI is adapted from the 2008 report, A Risk Assessment Method for Preservatio of Assisted Rental Housing, prepared by the Shimberg Center with support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Window of Opportunity initiative. The full report is available at http://flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu/docs/Risk_Assessment_Final_052608.pdf.

Opt-out Risk Analysis ProcessOpt-out risk refers broadly to the risk of loss due to mort-gage prepayment, rental assistance contract opt-out and use restriction expiration. We developed a three-step method to analyze an inventory of properties for their risk of opt-out: 1) screen for eligibility, 2) flag for likelihood, and 3) sort by imminence.

1. Screen for eligibility of opt-out. The first step in creating a list of at-risk properties is to filter out those that cannot be converted to market-rate through prepayment, contract termination, or subsidy expiration, or that are not eligible to do so for a predetermined period of time (e.g. 10 years). First, some properties were funded under one or more programs that do not allow for opt-outs or prepayment. For example, properties receiving subsidies from the HUD Section 202 program after 1990 received grants rather than loans, so prepayment is not possible. Second, and more difficult to determine, a property may have long-term use restrictions placed upon it beyond the statutory require-ments of the funding program. For instance, starting in projects funded in the early 1990s, recipients of Low Income Housing Tax Credits from Florida Housing must agree to an affordability period of 50 years, well beyond the 15-year period originally required by federal law. Where these restrictions are placed upon projects as part of an individual negotiation between the funder and the owner, they are very difficult to track for an entire inven-tory. However, when these restrictions exist as a matter of policy for a particular funding source and program, as in the Florida Housing tax credit example, they can be tracked for properties if the funding program information is in the database.

2. Flag for likelihood of opt-out. Properties can be flagged, ranked or clustered by the presence of factors that have been shown to make opt-outs more likely. The Shimberg Center identified the factors in Table A4.1 based on re-views of numerous risk assessment processes. The factors are limited to those that are already in the AHI or can be derived from existing AHI and Census data.

3. Sort for imminence of opt-out. A list of properties that are at some higher of conversion can be sorted by the date of possible mortgage prepayment, contract termina-tion, or subsidy expiration. This allows those using the target inventory to prioritize properties that will reach the decision point the soonest. Some users may feel that im-minence takes precedence over likelihood. That is, the user may choose to focus on properties with fewer risk factors pointing toward an opt-out decision, but on which imme-diate action would be needed in case the owner did decide to convert to market-rate rents.

Fail-Out Risk Analysis ProcessBecause any property can be at risk of deterioration and de-fault regardless of use restrictions, eligibility and imminence are not relevant to an analysis of deterioration risk. Therefore, rather than the three-step process used for assessing opt-out risk, the fail-out risk analysis process consists of a single step: flagging properties with factors indicating increased likeli-hood of deterioration or default. As Table A4.2 shows, these factors include family population, year built before 1987, low tenant household incomes, and poor physical condition.

The AHI contains data regarding the latter two variables only for properties with HUD assistance, either alone or in combination with funding from another government agency. The source of data for tenant household income is HUD’s Picture of Subsidized Households from 2000, which provides ten-ant characteristics for individual HUD properties. The source of data on the physical condition of properties is scores from physical inspections conducted by HUD’s Real Estate Assess-ment Center (REAC), also available only for HUD properties. In effect, this limits our ability to assess properties’ deterio-ration risk to those with HUD funding, either alone or in combination with other funding sources.

Application of Risk Analysis ToolTo apply this tool, we performed the three-step opt-out analysis and single-step deterioration/default analysis on the 2,256 properties funded by HUD, RD, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, and local housing authorities in the AHI database.

Opt-Out AnalysisSTEP 1: Screen for Eligibility. We screened out any properties whose affordability restrictions, to the extent they can be de-termined through the AHI, cannot end until after 2020. This left 987 properties with 78,017 units.


79

Table A4.1. Variables Indicating Opt-Out Risk, Shimberg Method

Variable Direction Signaling Risk

Development Size < 50 units

Population Served Family

Ownership Type For-Profit/Limited Dividend/Other; i.e., not Non-

Profit

Older/Newer Assisted or Year Built Older subsidies or properties

Fully Funded? No17

Project Rent to Fair Market Rent ratio <80%

Neighborhood poverty rate Low and declining; i.e., Census block group poverty

rate declined 1990-2000 and is below average for all

assisted properties statewide

Note that the absence of these factors does not mean a property is completely safe from market-

rate conversion, and the presence of these factors does not automatically predict an opt-out.

Rather, these factors are red flags that help to prioritize a longer list of properties eligible for

conversion.

3. Sort for imminence of opt-out. A list of properties that are at some higher of conversion can be

sorted by the date of possible mortgage prepayment, contract termination, or subsidy expiration.

This allows those using the target inventory to prioritize properties that will reach the decision

point the soonest. Some users may feel that imminence takes precedence over likelihood. That is,

the user may choose to focus on properties with fewer risk factors pointing toward an opt-out

decision, but on which immediate action would be needed in case the owner did decide to

convert to market-rate rents.

Fail-Out Risk Analysis Process

Because any property can be at risk of deterioration and default regardless of use restrictions,

eligibility and imminence are not relevant to an analysis of deterioration risk. Therefore, rather

than the three-step process used for assessing opt-out risk, the fail-out risk analysis process

consists of a single step: flagging properties with factors indicating increased likelihood of

deterioration or default.

17

The extent to which a project is “Fully Funded” refers to the number of units affected by the relevant subsidy

program(s) and income and rent restrictions. We define a project as “Fully Funded” if no more than two units are

excluded from subsidies and restrictions. Allowing for two unfunded units permits projects with, for example, a

manager’s unit and unit used as an office to qualify as fully funded.

Note that the absence of these factors does not mean a property is completely safe from market-rate conversion, and the presence of these factors does not automatically predict an opt-out. Rather, these factors are red flags that help to prioritize a longer list of properties eligible for conversion.

Table A4.1. Variables Indicating Opt-Out Risk, Shimberg Method

17 The extent to which a project is “Fully Funded” refers to the number of units affected by the relevant subsidy program(s) and income and rent restrictions. We define a project as “Fully Funded” if no more than two units are excluded from subsidies and restrictions. Al-lowing for two unfunded units permits projects with, for example, a manager’s unit and unit used as an office to qualify as fully funded.

80

Table A4.2. Variables Indicating Deterioration and Default Risk, Shimberg Method

Variable Direction Signaling Risk

Population Served Family

Year Built Pre-1987

Tenant Household Income Lowest; i.e., 0-15% of HUD Area Median

Family Income

Physical Condition Poor; i.e., REAC score <60

The AHI contains data regarding the latter two variables only for properties with HUD

assistance, either alone or in combination with funding from another government agency. The

source of data for tenant household income is HUD’s Picture of Subsidized Households from

2000, which provides tenant characteristics for individual HUD properties. The source of data on

the physical condition of properties is scores from physical inspections conducted by HUD’s

Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC), also available only for HUD properties. In effect, this

limits our ability to assess properties’ deterioration risk to those with HUD funding, either alone

or in combination with other funding sources.

Application of Risk Analysis Tool

To apply this tool, we performed the three-step opt-out analysis and single-step

deterioration/default analysis on the 2,256 properties funded by HUD, RD, Florida Housing

Finance Corporation, and local housing authorities in the AHI database. These properties provide

over 250,000 units of assisted housing in Florida.

Opt-Out Analysis

Step 1: Screen for Eligibility. We screened out any properties whose affordability restrictions, to

the extent they can be determined through the AHI, cannot end until after 2020. This left 814

properties with 64,252 units.

Step 2: Flag for Likelihood. We assigned one of three scores for each of the seven opt-out risk

variables to the 987 properties: 0 indicating the risk factor was not present, 1 indicating the risk

factor was present, or a null value indicating lack of data for that variable. Each property was

then assigned an opt-out risk score as the sum of the individual factor scores. While property

scores of 0 to 7 were possible, in practice no property scored higher than 5. We set scores of 4-5

as indicating heightened risk. We also assigned a score of 5 to any HUD property with a rent to

FMR ratio less than 80 percent and for-profit/limited dividend ownership, even if no other risk

factors were present. In addition, Florida Housing Finance Corporation projects with a Derived

FHFC Rent to FMR ratio less than 80 percent, 2000 Median Gross Rent for Block Group greater

than 2000 two-bedroom FMR, and for-profit ownership received two points for this variable.

In total, this yielded 101 developments at risk before the end of 2020 in Florida, with 6,016

assisted rental units. Table A3.3 below shows the properties and units by each risk score. Rows

in bold indicate properties considered as heightened opt-out risks.

Table A4.2. Variables Indicating Deterioration and Default Risk, Shimberg Method

Table A4.3. Florida Assisted Housing Properties by Opt-Out Risk Score


Opt-Out Score Properties Assisted Units

0 33 3,448

1 174 16,764

2 359 31,917

3 288 18,709

4 83 2,964

5 50 4,215

Total 987 78,017

Table A4.4 Properties by Expiration Year of Subsidies

Expiration Date Properties Assisted Units

2008 23 1,663

2009 24 1,420

2010 12 1,302

2011 8 316

2012 1 34

2014 1 160

2015 1 48

2016 2 214

2019 3 130

2020 1 64

Date not available 57 1,828

Total 133 7,179

47

Table A4.4 Properties at Opt-Out Risk by Expiration Year of Subsidies

82

consisting of the sum of the individual factor scores. Properties with scores of 3 or 4 were

considered to be at heightened risk. In total, this yielded 42 properties with 3,856 assisted units.

Table A4.5 below shows the deterioration/default risk scores for the properties in the AHI, with

higher risk scores indicated in bold.

Table A4.5. Florida Assisted Housing Properties by Deterioration Risk Score

Deterioration Risk Score Properties Units

0 452 30,041

1 1,351 184,224

2 411 35,958

3 38 3,575

4 4 281

Total 2,256 254,079

Of the properties scoring 3 or 4, 15 properties with 1,083 assisted units also appeared on the list

of properties at heightened opt-out risk.

Table A4.5. Florida Assisted Housing Properties by Deterioration Risk Score

STEP 2: Flag for Likelihood. We assigned one of three scores for each of the seven opt-out risk variables to the 987 proper-ties: 0 indicating the risk factor was not present, 1 indicating the risk factor was present, or a null value indicating lack of data for that variable. Each property was then assigned an opt-out risk score as the sum of the individual factor scores. While property scores of 0 to 7 were possible, in practice no property scored higher than 5. We set scores of 4-5 as indicating heightened risk. We also assigned a score of 5 to any HUD property with a rent to FMR ratio less than 80 percent and for-profit/limited dividend ownership, even if no

other risk factors were present. In addition, Florida Housing Finance Corporation projects with a Derived FHFC Rent to FMR ratio less than 80 percent, 2000 Median Gross Rent for Block Group greater than 2000 two-bedroom FMR, and for-profit ownership received two points for this variable.

In total, this yielded 101 developments at risk before the end of 2020 in Florida, with 6,016 assisted rental units. Table A4.3 shows the properties and units by each risk score. Rows in bold indicate properties considered as heightened opt-out risks.

18 See Step 1 above for a description of the Overall Expiration of Governing Program field. If there had been properties with potential mortgage prepayment risk before the expiration of other subsidies, the date of prepayment eligibility would have been used rather than mortgage maturity date.


Opt-Out Score Properties Assisted Units

0 33 3,448

1 174 16,764

2 359 31,917

3 288 18,709

4 83 2,964

5 50 4,215

Total 987 78,017

Table A4.4 Properties by Expiration Year of Subsidies

Expiration Date Properties Assisted Units

2008 23 1,663

2009 24 1,420

2010 12 1,302

2011 8 316

2012 1 34

2014 1 160

2015 1 48

2016 2 214

2019 3 130

2020 1 64

Date not available 57 1,828

Total 133 7,179


STEP 3: Sort for Imminence. With the at-risk list in place, we then sorted for the Overall Expiration of Governing Pro-gram field to show the imminence of potential loss to the inventory.18 Table A4.4 shows the number of properties with a risk score of 4 or 5 by year of expiration of subsidies.

Fail-Out AnalysisWe assigned a 0, 1, or null (blank) score for each of the four fail-out risk variables for the 2,256 properties in the AHI. Each property was then assigned a fail-out risk score on a scale of 0-4 consisting of the sum of the individual factor scores. Properties with scores of 3 or 4 were considered to be at heightened risk. In total, this yielded 42 properties with 3,856 assisted units.

Table A4.5 shows the deterioration/default risk scores for the properties in the AHI, with higher risk scores indicated in bold.

Of the properties scoring 3 or 4, 12 properties with 926 assisted units also appeared on the list of properties at heightened opt-out risk.

Anne RayDiep NguyenWilliam O’DellPatricia Roset-ZuppaDouglas WhiteFlorida Housing Data ClearinghouseShimberg Center for Housing Studies M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building ConstructionCollege of Design, Construction and PlanningUniversity of Florida


Major funding for this report provided by the State of Florida.

The State of Florida’s Assisted Rental Housing

Florida Housing Data ClearinghouseShimberg Center for Housing StudiesM.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building ConstructionCollege of Design, Construction & PlanningUniversity of Florida203 Rinker HallP.O. Box 115703Gainesville, Florida 32611-5703


Documents

Assisted Rental Housing - University of Florida · A second, parallel effect has been the predominance of for-profit ownership of Florida’s assisted housing. In the early years